CWP(T) No. 6054 of 2008. 23.04.2010. Present: Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP No. 257 of 2010. Heard. Allowed. The name of person mentioned in Para-4 of the application is brought on record as legal representative of petitioner Dayal Singh. The amended memo of parties is permitted to be taken on record. CWP(T) No. 6054 of 2008. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the husband of petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Regional Manager(Enquiry) was appointed as inquiry officer. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the husband of petitioner on 5.9.1998 (Annexure P- 1). The appeal was preferred against the imposition of penalty. The appeal was decided on 24th June, 1999 vide Annexure P-II. A perusal of this office order reveals that it has been passed without due application of mind. It is settled law by now that the order passed by the appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal are to be taken into consideration while considering the appeal. 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 : 3 : Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate 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, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-II, dated 24.06.1999 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal and decide the same within a period of six weeks from today. The appellate authority is directed to pass a speaking order. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 23, 2010. (bhupender)