Vinod Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner was posted in Security Guard of his Holiness the Dalai Lamba at Mecleodganj. He was found absent on 22.5.1998 when the Guard was checked by the Commandant I Ind Battalion, Dharamshala. He was marked absent vide daily diary entry No. 14 dated 22.5.1998. A regular inquiry was initiated against him. Sh. Fauji Ram, Dy. Superintendent of Police was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He was also put under suspension. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Commandant. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of one annual increment permanently vide order dated 6.3.1999. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the same vide order dated 24.3.2000. The order dated 24.3.2000 is neither speaking nor reasoned. The Appellate Authority should have passed a speaking order after taking into consideration all the points urged by the Petitioner in his appeal (Annexure A-11).

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.

Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-12 dated 24.3.2000 is quashed and set aside. Appellate Authority is directed to rehear and decide the appeal by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from today. However, there shall be no order as to costs.