IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8230 of 2008. Decided on 7th December, 2010. Om Prakash Verma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): A memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 9th March, 2000 (Annexure A-1), whereby he was called for to file reply within a period of ten days. He filed reply to the same vide Annexure A-2, dated 16th March, 2000. However, the petitioner was reduced to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding three years without cumulative effect vide order dated 28th November, 2000. The order dated 28th November, 2000 is neither speaking nor reasoned. It is settled law by now that the disciplinary authority has to pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the pleas/grounds taken in the reply. In this case, there is only bald expression that the reply of the petitioner was considered, however, the manner in which it has been dealt with, has not been spelt out by the disciplinary authority. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 have held as under: “13. At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 19. In the cases where the Courts have not recorded reasons in the judgment, legality, propriety and correctness of the orders by the Court of competent jurisdiction are challenged in absence of proper discussion. The requirement of recording reasons is applicable with greater rigor to the judicial proceedings. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or - 3 - declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.” 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-3, dated 28th November, 2000 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. [ (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 07, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 -