Roop Ram vs Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide memo dated 4.6.2004. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner on 17.11.2004. The penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the Petitioner vide office order dated 24.10.2005. He preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors against the imposition of penalty vide Annexure A-9 dated 24.10.2005. The same has been rejected without a speaking order by the Board of Directors, as conveyed to the Petitioner by the Managing Director of the Respondent corporation on 2.5.2006.

It is settled law by now that if an appeal is filed by the incumbent, it ought to be decided by a speaking order after taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken therein. In the instant case once the Petitioner had filed an appeal, it should have been considered by the Appellate Authority by taking into consideration all the pleas/grounds taken therein. Accordingly, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-11 dated 2.5.2006 is quashed and set aside. The Board of Directors is directed to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order after hearing the Petitioner, within a period of two months, after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the Petitioner. No costs.