IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.10161 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 28.2.2008 Satyakam Yadav ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and Another .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nigam Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Against the petitioner, departmental inquiry was instituted by invoking the provisions of rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. After preliminary inquiry, he was put under suspension. Thereafter, on getting his reply dated 17.10.2003 to the charge sheet dated 1.10.2003. Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 7.2.2004. It was alleged against the petitioner, a Master, that while he was performing duties as a Duty Master on 10.8.2003 a student had died of drowning in the swimming pool of the school. It was specific allegation against him that he had failed to take roll call of the students and further that he had failed to make preparations for the parents' day in the school. Inquiry Officer found him guilty with regard to the above said two charges. The punishing authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner and on getting his reply, vide order dated 10.6.2004 (P.8), the following punishment was inflicted upon him: “A penalty of reduction to the lower stage of Rs.10900/- in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and so on with immediate effect for two years is hereby imposed on Sh. S.K. Yadav, Master. Further he would not earn annual increments of pay due to him in the years 2005 and 2006 and on expiry of this period, this reduction will have cumulative effect on postponing future increments on his pay. The period of suspension will be treated as leave of the kind due.” CWP.NO.10161 of 2007 #2# Petitioner went in appeal, which was partly allowed, punishment referred to above was reduced and punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded to him vide orders dated 10.10.2006/31.1.2007 (P.10). It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that neither the punishing authority nor the appellate authority has adverted to the objections raised by him to the inquiry report and the facts projected by him in his defence. We have gone through the reply filed to the second show cause notice and also the grounds of appeal submitted by the petitioner. It is clear from the orders under challenge that none of those grounds was considered when orders dated 10.6.2004 (P.8) and 10.10.2006/31.1.2007 (P.10) were passed. We feel that the authorities concerned have failed to apply their mind while passing the Impugned Orders. Quasi-judicial authorities are supposed to refer to the facts of the case and defence taken by the delinquent official and then to pass an appropriate order. Above said facts are missing in the impugned orders. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in The British India Corporation Ltd, New Egerton Woollen Mills Branch, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur v. State of Punjab and others, 2004(3) RSJ, 96. Orders dated 10.6.2004 (P.8) and 10.10.2006/31.1.2007 (P.10) are not speaking one. Except referring to some facts, nothing has been stated about the defence taken by the petitioner. In view of above, we allow this writ petition, set aside orders dated 10.6.2004 (P.8) and 10.10.2006/31.1.2007 (P.10) with liberty to the punishing authorities to pass order afresh by taking note of the defence taken by the petitioner. If prayed, opportunity of personal hearing be given to the parties concerned. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 28, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE