PARMESH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on 14th August, 2006. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 8th December, 2006. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to petitioner on 23rd December, 2006 why the penalty of removal from Government service be not imposed upon him. He received the copy of the same on 6th January, 2007. However, he did not make any representation against the same. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from Government service upon the petitioner on 28th February, 2007. He preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 1st March, 2007. The same was rejected by the appellate authority on 5th December, 2007 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. The Principal Secretary (Elementary Education) has also been influenced by the comments made by the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 7th July, 2007 while deciding the appeal. The appellate authority has to apply its mind independently and the statutory function can not be abdicated. The appeal filed by the petitioner vide Annexure A -13, dated 1st March, 2007 is very exhaustive. Petitioner has raised questions of law and has also assailed the findings of the inquiry report.

(2.) THEIR Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 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.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A -1, dated 5th December, 2007 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to rehear the appeal filed by the petitioner on 01.03.2007 (Annexure A -13) and decide the same in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs.