RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 23.1.2004 (P-9) and 11.10.2004 (P-12), passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner. The order dated 21.3.2004 (P-9) has been passed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (Respondent No. 2), who is the punishing authority of the petitioner. Against the aforementioned order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department (Respondent No. 1) on 3.3.2004 (P-11). The Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 1 has conveyed the order dated 11.10.2004 (P-12) through respondent No. 2 intimating dismissal of his appeal. It is appropriate to mention that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the basis of his conviction recorded in FIR No. 168, dated 26.7.1998, under Sections 323/324/307/148/149 IPC, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the petitioner and awarded separate sentences for different offences. On appeal to this Court, the order of conviction was upheld whereas sentence, on account of some compromise, was considered to be sufficient to the extent that was already undergone.

(2.) MR . D.S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a short submission that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 1 does not answer the requirement of Regulation 18 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Services Regulation, 1989 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'). It has been emphasised that the order passed by the appellate authority must contain reasons and such an order must be a speaking order. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the appellate authority is a cryptic order and does not contain any reason whatsoever. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that the order dated 11.10.2004 (P-12) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. A perusal of Regulation 18 of the Regulations shows that all the rules of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, as applicable to the State of Haryana (for brevity, 'the 1987 Rules') would apply in matters relating to discipline, penalty and appeals to the members of the service of HUDA till such time HUDA frames its own regulations subject to the condition that the nature of penalty and the authority to impose such penalties as well as the appellate authority would be as specified in Appendix C and CI of the Regulations. Rule 9 of 1987 Rules recognises the right of appeal of an employee and according to Rule 11 the appellate authority is required to pass orders on the appeal. There is an obligation imposed by Rule 11 and the same reads as under:-