CWP No.5317 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5317 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Gurbachan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as a Veterinary Pharmacist in the respondent-Department. He was charge-sheeted on the allegations that he proceeded on Earned Leave w.e.f. 11.09.2004 to 27.09.2004 without getting the same sanctioned in advance and thereby affected the on-going vaccination work of the Department. His reply having been found unsatisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 10.03.2006 (Annexure P8). CWP No.5317 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Punjab after observing that “the appeal has been dismissed after due consideration”. (3). It is well-settled that while deciding an appeal under the statutory Rules, the Appellate Authority is obligated to delve upon the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and reason out as to why the appeal merits rejection or acceptance. No such exercise has been carried out by the Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order which is wholly cryptic and laconic in nature. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent that the order dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure P11) passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby quashed and the respondent No.2 – the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal afresh and in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order CWP No.5317 of 2009.doc - 3 – and preferably after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.02.2010 vishal shonkar