IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8061 of 2008, Decided on: 20.05.2009. Dev Raj. .… … … Petitioner. Versus H.R.T.C. and another … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.1 For the petitioner: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 11.8.2000. He made confessional statement on 3.11.2000. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the confession made by the petitioner submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority, dated 3.11.2000. The Disciplinary Authority issued memorandum dated 20.1.2001 to the petitioner, whereby he was permitted to make a representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memorandum. He filed detailed reply to the memorandum on 19.2.2001. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from the service upon the petitioner on 21.3.2001 (Annexure A-6). He preferred Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes. - 2 - an appeal to the managing Director of the respondent-corporation against the imposition of penalty. The same stood rejected on 29.6.2001. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Advocate has strenuously argued that the confession statement of the petitioner dated 3.11.2000 could not be taken into consideration since the same has been made at the assurance held out by the Inquiry Officer and high ranking Officers. She then contended that the reply filed by her client to the memorandum has not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority at all. She finally contended that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are not self-contained. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was served with memorandum on 11.8.2000. His statement was recorded by the Inquiry officer on 3.11.2000. The Inquiry officer on the basis of the confession of the petitioner submitted the report as noticed above to the Disciplinary Authority on 3.11.2000. He has been called upon to file representation against the proposed penalty of removal from service. He has taken a specific stand in his reply to the show cause notice that it was only due to the assurance held out by the Inquiry Officer that he gave his statement on 3.11.2000. He also pleaded that the imposition of proposed penalty of removal from the service was harsh and thus was not in consonance with the alleged misconduct. He also prayed for personal hearing. The penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on 21.3.2001. A bare perusal of office order dated 21.3.2001 reveals that the reply furnished by the petitioner to the memorandum dated 20.1.2001 has not - 3 - been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the fine imposed upon the petitioner of Rs.2000/- under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner was never charged for this misconduct. The same could not be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. In case it was at all to be taken into consideration, the petitioner was required to be put to notice of the adverse material. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a speaking order. A bare perusal of the appellate order also reveals that the same is not self-contained. It is settled by now that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority should be self-contained and reasoned. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others, 2009 (1) Scale, 284 have held as under:- “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority is not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The material brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceedings, but the principles of - 4 - natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently was not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.” In chairman Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others (2009 ) 4 Supreme Court Cases 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that though no detailed reasons may be necessary to be given by the Appellate Authority while affirming the order. However, some reasons should be assigned to show due application of mind. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-6 dated 21.3.2001 and Annexure A-8 dated 29.6.2001 are quashed and set aside. It is open to the respondents to deal with the matter in accordance with law. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 20, 2009. (rkv) - 5 - April 18, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 6 -