IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 8067/2008 Decided on:21.5.2010 _____________________________________________ Nikku Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mrs Ranjana Parmar. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. However, it has come on record that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of removal upon the petitioner. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The same has been rejected by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure A-7) without a speaking order. 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. 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 3 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. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking order within a period of ten weeks from today. The Appellate Authority shall taken into consideration the effect of non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority had taken the decision to impose penalty of removal upon the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.5.2010 *awasthi*