RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners. The inquiry officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18th March, 1994 imposed the penalty upon him, which reads thus: "That in addition to recovery of the Govt. loss mentioned against S/Sh. Bhagat Singh Deputy Ranger, Karam Dass Deputy Ranger and Kedar Singh Forest Guard, they are also reduced to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 5 years with cumulative effect:- Name of official Govt. loss recoverable. 1. Sh. Bhagat Singh. D.R. Rs.3212.00

(2.) " Karam Dass D.R. Rs.1570.00

(3.) " Kedar Singh, F.G. Rs.687.00" 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty vide order dated 18th March, 1994 to the competent authority. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 24.02.1996 (Annexure A-6) without a speaking order. It is now well settled that the order passed by the 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.