IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 11887 of 2008. Decided on: 05.01.2011. __________________________________________________________ Madhubala. … Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. She preferred an appeal before the Director (Education). Same has been rejected in the month of November, 2004 vide Annexure A-5. A bare perusal of Annexure A-5 makes it abundantly clear that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. Once an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner vide Annexure A-4, the same ought to have been decided by the appellate authority by passing a speaking and detailed order. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-5 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal afresh and decide the same by passing a speaking/detailed order within a period of two months after the production of a copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner is not represented by any Advocate, the respondent-Department shall inform the petitioner of this judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. January 05, 2011. (sck).