IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.3129/2008 Decided on:8.7.2009 S.N. Sankhyan. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes. For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 25.11.1992 whereby he was called upon to file reply within seven days for making excessive expenditure on gift packs and entertainment. He submitted reply to the same on 29.12.1992 and 11.3.1993. He was informed vide letter dated 29.4.1993 that the recovery amounting to Rs. 1,40,287/- shall be effected from him. He made a representation against the same on 1.10.1994. The General Manager informed the petitioner on 6.10.1994 that the Management had considered his request and not acceded to it. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 However, he was further informed that the matter can only be reviewed by the Board of Directors. He preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors on 7.10.1994. It was rejected on 13.9.1995. Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate has strenuously argued that the recoveries have been directed to be effected from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,40,287/- in violation of the principles of natural justice. He then contended that due to complex nature of facts, a regular inquiry was required to be initiated and conducted against his client. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that the procedure prescribed under law has been followed before the issuance of impugned orders Annexure A-8 and A-10 dated 6.10.1994 and 13.9.1995. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Mr. R.S. Gautam has argued that this Court had already issued directions for holding regular inquiry. This is not true. The subject matter of the present petition was never the subject matter of CWP No. 1254/1993 decided on 10.11.1993. The subject matter of this petition was pertaining to release of advance T.A. and for charging penal rent for occupation of the Government accommodation by the petitioner. The subject matter of the present petition is incurring of expenditure for gift packs and entertainment. He was served with a memorandum on 25.11.1992. He has filed the reply to the same on 29.12.1992 and 11.3.1993. The decision has been taken to effect recovery from the petitioner on 29.4.1993. There is not even a whisper or murmur that the representation of the petitioner was considered while rejecting the 3 representation of the petitioner on 29.4.1993. It was necessary for the management to take into consideration the reply furnished by the petitioner to the memorandum 25.11.1992. The Court is of the considered opinion that since complex questions of law and facts were involved, it was necessary for the management to hold regular inquiry. The complex questions involved could not be summarily decided by the management. The petitioner has made a representation against the order dated 29.4.1993 on 1.10.1994. The same was rejected on 6.10.1994. This order is also non-speaking. It was necessary for the management to assign reasons why the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The Board of Directors has also rejected the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure A-10 without a speaking order. A bare perusal of contents of letter dated 13.9.1995 disclosed that the management had come to a conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were of serious nature and he was found guilty of misconduct. If the management itself was of the view that the charges against the petitioner were of serious nature and he was guilty of misconduct, a regular inquiry ought to have been initiated and conducted against him. It is also not clear from the contents of this letter whether the grounds taken by the petitioner in his appeal have been considered or not. What has been conveyed to the petitioner, it appears, is the gist of decision of the Board of Directors. It is now well settled that the appellate order must be a speaking and self-contained. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.9.1995 is quashed and set aside. 4 However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. No costs. 8.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*