IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4069 of 2008. Decided on: 20.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : M/s. R. Bharti and Anup Rattan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the adverse remarks recorded in his A.C.R. dossiers for the year ending 31st March, 1994 to the appellant authority. The same was rejected vide Annexure P-5, dated 23rd July, 1996. A bare perusal of this letter reveals that the order is neither reasoned nor speaking. It is settled law by now that any administrative order which has civil and evil consequences, must be supported by reasons and should be detailed one. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-5, dated 23rd July, 1996 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - consider the appeal afresh and decide the same by a detailed and speaking order, within a period of one month after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. The petitioner is also permitted to place additional material in support of his case before the appellate authority. In case the appeal preferred by the petitioner is allowed and adverse entries are expunged, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 20, 2010. (sck).