CIVIL APPEAL 11790 of 2008 on 3 December 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP(T) No. 11790 of 2008.

Decided on 24[th] December, 2010.

_____________________________________________________

R.K. Bhardwaj.

….Petitioner. -Versus-

Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation, Shimla and another.

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]. No.

__________________________________________________________

For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 10.02.1997. Shri H.C. Chauhan was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 03.12.1998 (Annexure A-8). Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same to the Board of Directors, H.P.M.C. Ltd. on 22.02.1999. The same has been rejected by the Board of Directors on 02.12.2004, Annexure A-11 without a speaking order. It is now well settled that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority must be speaking and reasoned. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negiversus Punjab National Bank and others

(2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under:

“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 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 inference 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. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bankversus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumariversus Andhra Education Society and others,2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order.

4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 2.12.2004, Annexure A-11 is quashed and set aside. The Board Directors/appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 22.02.1999 afresh after taking into consideration the grounds/pleas taken therein by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.

December 24, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

`