Civil Writ Petition No. 12270 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12270 of 2010 Date of Decision : 23.5.2011 Jarnail Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate for the respondents. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Punishing Authority, vide which 5% cut in pension of the petitioner has been imposed, as also for quashing of the order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) vide which the appeal of the petitioner was not entertained because the same was not filed within the time stipulated. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the basic order is dated 29.5.2007(Annexure P-4), which is passed by Civil Writ Petition No. 12270 of 2010 -2- the punishing Authority, but no reason, whatsoever, has been mentioned therein while imposing the punishment of 5% cut in the pension. He contends that the order being non-speaking, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he further prays that appeal order, on this ground, in view of the fact that order of punishing authority dated 29.5.2007 is non-speaking, can also not be sustained. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the punishing authority on consideration of the enquiry report as also the reply filed by the petitioner had come to a conclusion that the said punishment would serve the interest of justice and, therefore, proceeded to pass the said order. She on this basis contends that the order of the punishing authority deserves to be sustained. As regards the appeal before appellate Authority the same was not filed within the time stipulated and, therefore, same could not be entertained and have already been passed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have have gone through the records of the case. Perusal of the impugned order dated 29.5.2007 passed by the punishing authority, does not reveal even the basic facts with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. The basic findings returned by the Enquiry Officer Civil Writ Petition No. 12270 of 2010 -3- are based on the stand of the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to him and the consideration of the said reasons / justification given by the petitioner to the show cause notice. This order does not withstand the stand, reasonableness and the purpose of justified reasons for coming to a conclusion while imposing an order of punishment, which has civil consequence. The order is, thus, not in accordance with the principles as envisaged under the Service Law which requires orders to be justified and supported with reasons. In this view of the matter, this impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In view of the order dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) having been set aside the order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) consequently cannot be upheld and is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed the impugned orders having been set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent / Board to reconsider the matter and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The said order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 23.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE