HEM RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure P -4. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of inquiry report passed final order dated 7.1.2004 whereby the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 6.1.2004 and his name was struck of the strength of 5th Battalion, SSB, Lakhimpur -Kheri (U.P.). The period of suspension with effect from 30.7.2003 to 5.1.2004 was treated/regularised as Dies non - and whatsoever he has already drawn. He preferred an appeal against the order dated 7.1.2004 on 2.2.2004. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 24.3.2004 and the same was conveyed to him vide memorandum dated 31st March, 2004. The appellate order was a non -speaking order. He filed a petition/representation against order dated 7.1.2004 before the Director General, FHQ, Lucknow on 28.4.2004 purportedly under Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. In the meantime memorandum dated 31.3.2004 was superseded vide memorandum dated 30.6.2005. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.4.2005. A Division Bench of this Court directed the Inspector General, S.S.B., FHQ, Lucknow to decide the revision petition/representation in accordance with law by recording a reasoned order within eight weeks. In sequel to this order dated 28.4.2005, the representation preferred by the petitioner was decided and rejected on 14th July, 2005.

(2.) MR . Rajiv Jiwan has strenuously argued that the orders, i.e. Annexure P -12 dated 30.6.2005 and Annexure P -13, dated 14th July, 2005 are non -speaking orders. He then contended that once this Court had directed the Director General, S.S.B., FHQ, Lucknow to decide the revision petition/representation by a speaking order, the same ought to have been decided by a speaking order. Mr. K.B. Khajuria has supported the impugned orders.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed an appeal against order dated 7.1.2004. He had raised five grounds in his appeal. However, initially the appeal was rejected by a very cryptic order on 24th March, 2004 and the same was conveyed to him on 31.3.2004. This order dated 24th March, 2004 was superseded vide memorandum dated 30th June, 2005. Order dated 30th June, 2005 is again a non -speaking order. The Deputy Inspector General (Sector Headquarters), S.S.B., Bahraich has only reproduced three articles of charges levelled against the petitioner and thereafter he has discussed the punishment awarded to him and ultimately abruptly came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal since the due procedure has been adopted and the punishment was justified vide the appellate order. It is settled law by now that the appellate order should be a speaking order. The grounds mentioned in the appeal are required to be discussed while deciding the appeal.