IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2778 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Satbir Singh Chalia ...... Petitioner versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was working as Upper Divisional Clerk with the respondent department. He was posted at Sohna during the period from 23.07.1998 to 24.3.2000. The charge sheet was served upon him on 7th October, 2004, on certain allegations of having caused loss of `1,16,178/- to the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that he demanded record to enable him to file the reply vide letter dated 18th September, 2006 and also requested for dropping the charge sheet. Respondent No.3, however, passed the order imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 18th November, 2008 and appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order came to be dismissed vide order dated 3rd May, 2009 (Annexure P-8). These orders are challeged in the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders. Civil Writ Petition No.2778 of 2010 -2- Petitioner was imposed penalty vide order dated 18th November, 2008 (Annexure P-6). It seems that the disciplinary authority has passed a totally non-speaking order without discussing the charge, the enquiry report and the findings etc. Such an order of the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellate authority though made reference to the allegations against the petitioner but returned no findings by discussing the evidence/material on record and passed the order dismissing the appeal on 3rd May, 2009 (Annexure P-8). Even this order is not reasoned one. Both the orders passed by the respondents suffer from non application of mind and being without reasons are liable to be set aside. Petitioner has right to know the allegations against him and the circumstances which persuaded the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to pass the order against him. This petition is accordingly allowed and the orders dated 18th November, 2008 (Annexure P-6) and 3rd May, 2009 (Annexure P-8) are hereby quashed with the directions to the respondents to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity of providing documents as demanded by the petitioner and affording fresh opportunity to him within a period of six months. (PERMOD KOHLI) November 25, 2010 JUDGE P.seth