CWP(T) No. 6779 of 2008 6.12.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. There is no dispute that in terms of order dated 8th of August, 1996 certain penalties were imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an appeal, which stands decided in terms of impugned order, Annexure A-4, which reads ad under:- “To Sh. Rattan Chand, Driver, hpmc, FPP, Parwanu Distt. Solan. Sub:- Appeal again at the penalty order dated 17.3.99. Dear Sir, With reference to the appeal dated 17.3.99 submitted by you to the Board of Directors, it is informed that your appeal dated 8.8.96 on similar grounds was submitted for consideration of the Appeal Committee constituted by the Board of Directors to examine the appeals and the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting held on 25.9.98. After having considered the appeal and the related records it was observed that unbecoming conduct of your has been proved in the inquiry. The order of penalty has been proved in the inquiry. The order of penalty has thus been upheld and appeal rejected by the Board of Directors. The above decision has been conveyed to you earlier vide letter No. hpmc:Per:4/94-12544 dated 16th January, 1999 (copy enclosed).” 2. Evidently, no reasons have been assigned by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal. They are also not existing on the record. Consequently, as prayed for by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, on this ground alone, impugned order dated 5.4.99 is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to decide the petitioner’s appeal by passing a reasoned order, if CWP(T) No. 6779 of 2008 Required by affording adequate opportunity of representation to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy or production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 3. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. December 6, 2010, (Sanjay Karol), J. (vs)