C.W.P. No.20534 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20534 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.10.2011. Prem Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents -State. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order by which he has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service and also the order of the appellate authority declining to interfere in the said order. The solitary contention that has been raised before this Court, against impugned order dated 16.03.2010, is that the same is non- speaking and does not address the issues that the petitioner raised in the appeal challenging the order of the competent authority awarding the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 27.02.2009. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, who has referred to the serious allegations against the petitioner which stand established against him during the course of a detailed inquiry. I have considered the matter and perused the impugned C.W.P. No.20534 of 2010 (O&M) 2 orders. The appellate authority while dealing with the matter has observed as follows:- “xxx xxx xxx I have carefully gone through the appeal, departmental enquiry file and other relevant documents. The instant departmental enquiry has been held as per procedure laid down in Police Rules and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal are devoid of any merit. Such like misdemeanor by police personnel cannot be taken lightly and leniently. The punishment awarded is fully justified and commensurate with the misconduct committed by him.” From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is evident that order does not reflect proper application of mind. It is cryptic to say the least. An appeal is creation of a statute and is an important right which is available to an individual against whom an adverse order has been passed. When such a right is availed of and attempted to be answered by the appellate authority, the least that is expected is that it should be a complete manifestation of the reasoned answer to the grievance raised by such an individual as also the reasons for repelling or accepting the same. This is imperative so as to lend a credible meaning to the proceedings. It is C.W.P. No.20534 of 2010 (O&M) 3 to be remembered that an appeal is not an empty formality and since it enhances an inherent process of ensuring substantial justice by the observance of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be left to the vagaries of non-reasoning, or deficit reasoning, slip shod approach and a deficient procedure. It is not expected that the appellate authority should resort to lengthy discussion, but the minimum that can be done is to answer the points which have been raised before him. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has not applied its mind to answer the controversy before it. The impugned order (Annexure P-9) being non-speaking is, therefore, set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of what has been stated above. The necessary orders in this regard be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. 04.10.2011 (Mahesh Grover) neetu Judge