CWP-T No.2242 of 2008. 01.01.2009 Present: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 24th September, 1993. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan has strenuously argued that the order dated 24th September, 1993 is not a speaking order. He has relied upon Narinder Mohan Arya Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2006) 4 SCC 713 and State of Uttaranchal and Others versus Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236. It is settled law by now that the appellate order must be a speaking order. The speaking order is sine qua non to see whether there is due application of mind by the appellate authority or not. The perusal of impugned order shows that there is non-application of mind by the appellate authority and the order is a non- speaking one. Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases (supra), the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24th September, 1993 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal strictly as per the grounds taken in the appeal. The appellate authority is further directed to decide the appeal within three weeks from today. It is made clear the petitioner shall also be afforded personal hearing at the time of adjudication of the appeal. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal by a speaking order. No costs. Copy Dasti. January 01, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (sck)