IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2255 of 2008. Decided on: 5.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Anil Kumar Kapil … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Housing Board … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer has submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority on 12.10.1989 has imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred an appeal/representation to the Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer on 10.11.1989. He also approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 167 of 1990. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 31.8.1992 directed the original application to be treated as a representation. In sequel to order dated 31.8.1992, the Appellate Authority passed order dated 28.5.1993. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties and after going through the copy of the inquiry report that the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 was proceeded exparte. The reason assigned by the petitioner in his appeal/representation for not leading his defence was lack of resources and serious ailment. This aspect has been over looked by the Appellate Authority altogether. It is settled law by now that the Appellate Authority has to take into consideration the grounds mentioned in the appeal/representation and appellate order must be a speaking 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.5.1993 (Annexure A-39) is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal/representation afresh after taking into consideration the grounds taken in the appeal/representation within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 5, 2009. (cr)