Shoba Ram vs Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Driver in the respondent-Corporation. The inquiry officer was appointed. He furnished the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner vide office order dated 13.03.1995 (Annexure A-7). Petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty before the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 10.04.1995 (Annexure A-8). The same was rejected by the appellate authority on 28th July, 1995 vide Annexure A-9. The order dated 28th July, 1995 is neither speaking nor reasoned. 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 grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal. The petitioner has taken as many as thirteen grounds in his appeal dated 10.04.1995, however, the same have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, 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.

In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others, 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. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Others, have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order.

Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexure A-9, dated 28th July, 1995 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 10.04.1995 on the basis of the grounds taken in the appeal and decide the same by a speaking order. The needful shall be done within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

Copy dasti, on usual terms.