Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17.5.2011 Angrez Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 15419 of 2008 Baldev Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 17749 of 2009 Harish Chander .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 17829 of 2009 Harminder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -2- Civil Writ petition No. 18459 of 2009 Gurcharan Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 18927 of 2009 V.K. Syal .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 17821 of 2009 Avtar Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 5396 of 2010 Jaswant Singh .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents **** Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -3- Civil Writ petition No. 6181 of 2011 B.K. Chadha .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents. ( in CWP Nos. 18407 and 18927 of 2009 ) Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the respondents( in CWP Nos.18459 of 2009 and 6181 of 2011 ) Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents ( in CWP No. 5396 of 2010). Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents (in CWP Nos. 17821,17829 and 17749 of 2009 ) Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the respondents. (in CWP No.15419 of 2008) **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of nine civil writ petitions i.e. Civil Writ petition Nos. 18407 of 2009 Angrez Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 15419 of 2008 Baldev Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 17749 of 2009 Harish Chander Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 17829 of 2009 Harminder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 18459 of 2009 Gurcharan Singh Vs. The Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -4- State of Punjab & another, 17821 of 2009 Avtar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 18927 of 2009 V.K. Syal Vs. The State of Punjab & another, 5396 of 2010 Jaswant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another, and 6181 of 2011 B.K. Chadha vs. The State of Punjab & another, as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. For convenience facts are being taken from Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 'Angrez Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & another'. Challenge in the present writ petition is laid to the order dated 11.9.2009 (Annexures P/25) passed by the Executive Committee/ Appellate Authority, the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation-respondent No.2, on the ground that it has illegally upheld the order dated 5.3.2007 (Annexure P-13) in violation of the documents, which have been attached with the writ petition. The basic contention, which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner during arguments apart from others, is that the Appellate Authority while disposing of the statutory appeal, preferred by the petitioner, under Regulation 21 of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Staff (Conditions of Service) (Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) Regulation, 2002, the grounds which have been taken in the appeal by the petitioner have not been dealt with nor has any reason assigned for not agreeing or disagreeing with the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority has simply narrated the fact and sequence of the Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -5- events and thereafter in the concluding part of the order has proceeded to state that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer into the charges held the petitioner guilty of the same and since nothing new has been produced by the petitioner in support of his innocence, the appeal has no merits, which as a matter of fact is an incorrect finding incorporated by the Appellate Authority as the Enquiry Officer has not found him guilty but it was only on receipt of the enquiry report that the Punishing Authority has disagreed with the findings and recorded a dissenting note and thereafter proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and held him guilty of the charges leading to the passing of the order of punishment. This really reflects the depth of consideration and the seriousness with which the Appellate Authority has dealt with the appeal in deciding the same. The contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, could not be disputed by the counsel for the respondents. However, an effort has been made on their behalf to support the order of the Appellate Authority by referring to the various documents attached to the writ petition. In other cases, although, the enquiry Officer has held them guilty of the charges but in the light of the similar orders which have been passed by the Appellate Authority in the other matters, where again the basic aspect of the Appellate Authority to consider the grounds, which have been raised and to deal with them, have not been complied with, the said orders cannot be sustained. The order passed by the Appellate Authority does not satisfy the requirement of a speaking order. The Appellate Authority did not decide any of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, and Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -6- has not even recorded the bald conclusion on the points raised by the petitioner. There is no indication in the order as to by what process of the reasoning it came to the final conclusion that the appeal did not have any merit. Instead of passing of reasoned order the Appellate Authority has merely proceeded to dismiss the appeal without assigning any reasons. The order, thus, cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. In view of the above, all the present writ petitions stand allowed. The order dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-25) in Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009, order dated 5.5.2008 (Annexure P-14) in CWP No. 15419 of 2008, order dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-21) in CWP No. 17749 of 2009 ,order dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-21), CWP No.17829 of 2009, order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-19) in 18459 of 2009, order dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-16) in CWP No.17821 of 2009, order dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-22) in CWP No. 18927 of 2009, order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-28) in CWP No. 5396 of 2010 and order dated 28.5.2010 (Annexure P-23) in CWP No. 6181 of 2011, passed by the the Executive Committee/ Appellate Authority, the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation- respondent No.2, are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the Executive Committee/ Appellate Authority, the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation- respondent No.2, to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioners and pass a speaking order after considering the grounds, which have been taken by the petitioners in their appeal. The decision by the the Executive Committee/ Appellate Authority, the Punjab State Civil Writ petition No. 18407 of 2009 -7- Warehousing Corporation-respondent No.2, on the appeal shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioners forthwith. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. 17.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE