DHANI RAM AND OTHERS Vs. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA THROUGH ITS DEPOT MANAGER, KAPURTHALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 2.2.1987 (Annexure P-6) whereby the order of termination of services of the petitioners dated 1.2.1979 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Depot Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthala, was upheld.

(2.) The primary grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned order dated 1.2.79 (Annexure P-3) terminating his services. The said order reads as follows:-

(3.) A perusal of the order clearly shows that it has been passed as a measure of punishment on account of misconduct. Before this order was passed, an enquiry reprot Annexure (sic) was submitted by the Enquiry Officer-cum Accounts Officer, P.R.T.C., Kapurthala. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the reply to the show-cause notice. The Depot Manager has not passed any speaking order. It has been contended that it was the duty of the punishing authority to have applied its mind to the charges, the evidence as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer and come to the conclusion whether the charge against the petitioner have been proved or not. The Depot Manager has chosen to pass a non-speaking order in which there is no discussion of any kind. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Pb. Vs. Bakhtawar Singh, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2083 that the order of removal from service should be a speaking order. It should take note of all the points raised in the representation by the affected persons. Again, this court in Ram Das Chaudhry Vs. State of Punjab, 1968 S.L.R. 792 ; Vijay Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1971(1) S.L.R. 720 and Rajinder Pal Vs. The State of Punjab 1971(2) S.L.R. 130 has laid down that the order awarding punishment should be a speaking order. In the present case the order does not give any ground or reason. For this reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside.