IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 8750 of 2008. Decided on: 07.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Amar Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure A-4, dated 4.4.2002, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority decided the same vide Annexure A-5, dated 31st May, 2002. A bare perusal of Annexure A-5, dated 31st May, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. It is settled law by now that the appellate authority must apply its mind after taking into consideration the contentions/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal and pass a speaking/reasoned order. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - “Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are 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 materials 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 proceeding but the principles of 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 inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were 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”. 3. Consequently, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petition is allowed. Annexure A-5, dated 31st May, 2002 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and also after taking into consideration the communication dated 23rd February, 2002, within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The appellate authority shall also take into consideration the principles laid down in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No.2882 of 2008 titled Darshan Singh versus H.R.T.C. He shall pass a speaking/reasoned order. The appellate authority shall also take into - 3 - consideration the fact that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement and it will cause immense hardship, if he is ordered to re-pay the amount of Rs.46772/-. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 07, 2010. (sck).