IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 6071 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2010. _____________________________________________________ Er. B.N. Singla. …Petitioner. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 8th May, 1997. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 22nd May, 1998. The copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 3rd June, 1998 to enable him to make representation/submissions against the inquiry report. Petitioner filed representation against the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of promotion for two years upon the petitioner vide order dated 18th December, 1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 18th December, 1998. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was not decided and the petitioner filed an Original Application bearing No. 1063 of 1999 before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal passed the following order on 22.3.1999:- “The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed an Appeal against the impugned order to the respondent Board. This Appeal was filed in December, 1998. It is going to be nearly three months but still the Appeal has not been decided. He prays that direction be issued to the respondents to decide the same within a period of one month. After hearing the learned counsels of the respective parties, we feel that we should direct the respondent Board to decide the Appeal within forty days from the date of this order. We order accordingly. List the matter after 45 days. In case the respondent- Board wants to file the reply, the same be filed within the above period.” 2. However, fact of the matter is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Board on 15th June, 1999. I have gone through the contents of the appellate order dated 15th June, 1999. The same is neither speaking nor reasoned. It is now well settled that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. It is not clear from the above order at all whether the grounds/pleas raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal have been redressed by the respondent-Board or not. The grounds/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal are required to be considered and discussed in the appellate order. However, the same is lacking in this case. 3. 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. 4. 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 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. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-6, dated 15th June, 1999 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18th December, 1998 afresh within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellate authority shall pass a speaking /reasoned order after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal after hearing the petitioner in person. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 24, 2010. (bhupender)