IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T)No.:2243 of 2008. Decided on: 07.05.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Kikkar Singh … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal on the petitioner. He assailed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority by way of an appeal to the Managing Director on 5.9.1993. The same was rejected by the Managing Director on 5.1.1994. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate has strenuously argued that office order dated 5.1.1994 is not self-contained. He has relied on Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570. He lastly contended that it was necessary for the Appellate Authority to consider all the grounds taken in the appeal. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has supported the order dated 5.1.1994. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 The petitioner had filed detailed appeal on 5.9.1993. The thrust of the appeal was that he has not been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case during the course of inquiry. He has denied all the charges levelled against him. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the Appellate Authority to pass a self-contained, speaking and reasoned order as has been held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others, (2006) 4 SCC 713, State of Uttaranchal and others versus Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and in a latest judgment rendered in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National bank & others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2009 (1) Scale 284 have held as under: “Furthermore, the order of the 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.” The order dated 5.1.1994 is not reasoned. He had only made certain observations that the inquiry was conducted properly and adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He has not touched the various grounds taken in the appeal. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Office Order dated 5.1.1994 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking/reasoned order after taking into consideration the grounds taken in the appeal within a period of twelve weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 7, 2009. (cr)