CWP(T) No. 1055 of 2008 05.11.2009 Present: Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner . The inquiry officer was appointed. He has submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. She preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has rejected the same on 29.2.2008. A bare perusal of the order reveals that it does not contain any reasons. It is settled law by now that order passed by the appellate authority must contain reasons. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 that the order passed by the appellate authority should be speaking one. Their Lordships 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 been 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 material 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. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure-A-12) is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh within a period of eight weeks from today by a self contained/speaking order. With these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 12,2009 (bhupender)