IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8443 of 2008. Decided on 8th December, 2010. _____________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand Kashyap. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh & Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate Generals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The Executive Engineer, I. & P.H. Division, Thural was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the petitioner under Rule 15 (4)(ii) of the C.C.S. (C.C.& A.) Rules, 1965 to file a representation against the same. Petitioner filed a representation on 06.04.2002. However, the same has been rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 19th April, 2002 (Annexure-A/1) without a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the orders/decision by the administrative/executive authority/quasi judicial authority must be speaking/reasoned. 2. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - 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 declining the relief claimed by the applicant. In this regard we may refer to certain judgments of this Court.” - 3 - 3. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A/1, dated 19th April, 2002 is quashed and set aside. The Superintending Engineer, I. & P.H. Circle, Dharamshala is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 06.04.2002 afresh after taking into consideration the pleas/grounds taken therein in right perspective, in accordance with law by a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be heard in person and for that purpose, separate notice be issued to him. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 08, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 - `