IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5767/2008 Decided on:14.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Laik Ram (II). …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Yash Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 vide Annexure A-1. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted report (Annexure A-3) to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect for a period of two years vide memo dated 20.1.1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation against memo dated 20.1.1998. The same was rejected by him vide office order 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 dated 23.1.1999. The office order dated 23.1.1999 is neither speaking nor detailed. It is settled law by now that the appellate order must be speaking and reasoned. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate 3 authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Office order Annexure A-6 dated 23.1.1999 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh by passing a speaking order within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.6.2010 *awasthi*