IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 626 of 2002. Decided on: 12.8.2008. __________________________________________________ Ravi Kumar … Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (Oral) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 9.8.2000. He was dismissed from service on culmination of the proceedings on 12.8.2000. He preferred an appeal to the Director General on 17.9.2000. The same was rejected on 17.10.2001, as is evident from Annexure P-8. Order dated 17.10.2001 reads thus: “Please refer to your Statutory Petition dated 17.9.2000 addressed to the Director General, Border Security Force, against your conviction by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) held on 12th August, 2000. 2. The issues raised in your petition have been considered very carefully at BSF HQrs in the light of relevant 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 legal provisions and the evidence in SSFC proceedings. After a detailed consideration and careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, your petition has been rejected by the DG being devoid of merit.” Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appeal ought to have been decided by a speaking and well reasoned order. He further submitted that it is necessary for the appellate authority to take all the grounds mentioned in the appeal. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has strenuously argued that the order dated 17.10.2001 has been passed after taking into consideration the entire relevant material facts. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The respondents have not chosen to file any reply. However, Mr. Sandeep Sharma has produced the entire records of the Summary Security Force Court Trial and the proceedings of the appeal. The petitioner had filed statutory petition on 17.9.2000, as noticed above, against his conviction by the Summary Security Force Court held on 12th August, 2000. It is evident from the language of Annexure P-8 that the order is not a speaking order. It is now well settled that the appellate order should be reasoned/speaking, more particularly, when the same is appealable before the competent courts of law. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713, have held as under: 3 “An appellate order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his part as regards the compliance with the requirements of law while exercising his jurisdiction under Rule 37 of the Rules. The Appellate Authority, therefore, could not ignore to exercise the said power. The order of the Appellate Authority demonstrates total non-application of mind. The Appellate Authority, when the Rules require application of mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was bound to assign reasons so as to enable the writ court to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to do. The expression “consider” is of some significance. In the context of the Rules, the Appellate Authority was required to see as to whether (i) the procedure laid down in the Rules was complied with; (ii) the enquiry officer was justified in arriving at the finding that the delinquent officer was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him; and (iii) whether penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was excessive.” I have also gone through the record produced by Mr. Sandeep Sharma. The appellate authority has only mentioned that he has seen paragraphs 14 and 16 of the appeal. He was bound to discuss what was contained in paragraphs 14 and 16. The appellate authority has to apply his mind to ensure whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with law and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is in conformity with law. The appellate authority has also to ensure about the adequacy of the punishment. The appellate authority is bound to consider all the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 4 In view of the definite law laid down in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 713, order dated 17.10.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order, Annexure P- 8 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the Statutory Petition preferred by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 12, 2008. (cr)