Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 427 (HP)

Ramesh Kumar v. Union Of India

2012-08-13

V.K.AHUJA

body2012
JUDGMENT : V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: "15(a) That the charge sheet dated 17/4/2007 (Annexure P/2), inquiry report (Annexure P/9), the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 6/8/2007 (Annexure P/10), the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18/10/2007 (Annexure P/12) and the order passed by the Revisional Authority (Annexure P/16) being illegal, arbitrary and unjust be quashed." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver with SSB and vide order dated 23.2.2007, he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served with the articles of charge (Annexure P-2). As per articles of charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence of gross misconduct and breach of security under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and Rules, 1955. An Assistant Commandant was appointed as Inquiring Authority to conduct the inquiry and he submitted his report. 3. The petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 6.7.2007 and the recommendation was made for imposition of major penalty. Thereafter, the order of removal of service was passed as per order dated 6.8.2007. 4. The petitioner filed a representation/appeal dated 30.8.2007, which was rejected by respondent No.3 as per his order dated 18.10.2007 without assigning any reason. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition before respondent No.2, as per Annexure P-13 and has been served a legal notice that no action has been taken on the revision and thereafter respondent No.2 vide his order dated 23.7.2008 rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority (Annexures P/10, P/12 and P/16 respectively). 7. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner had not given any reasons or discussed the evidence and, as such, the said order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner had not given any reasons or discussed the evidence and, as such, the said order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the revision petition filed by the petitioner, no specific ground was taken that no reasons have been given by the Appellate Authority but the grounds in para-3 taken in the revision petition filed against the order of Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Revisional Authority has also been challenged on the same ground that there is no discussion of evidence or reasons have been given by the Revisional Authority while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 5 SCC 242 . The observations made in para-17 are being reproduced as below: "17. In such a fact-situation, the subordinate officer has to face the adverse consequences without any fault on his part. The grievance raised by the appellant that recording the past criminal history of an accused is relevant in non-bailable offences only as it may be a relevant factor to be considered at the time of grant of bail, and he did not record the same as it was a bailable offence, has not been considered by any of the authorities at all. Undoubtedly, the statutory authorities are under the legal obligation to decide the appeal and revision dealing with the grounds taken in the appeal/revision, etc. otherwise it would be a case of non-application of mind." 11. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority shows that both the authorities had not given any reasons or referred to the evidence or reasons in coming to the final conclusion arrived at by them in dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, the orders passed by both these authorities Appellate as well as Revisional cannot be said to be self speaking since no reasons have been given and there is no mention of the fact as pointed out that the petitioner had confessed to the charges against him during the course of preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the orders passed by both these authorities Appellate as well as Revisional cannot be said to be self speaking since no reasons have been given and there is no mention of the fact as pointed out that the petitioner had confessed to the charges against him during the course of preliminary inquiry. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority are set-aside. The matter shall go back to the Appellate Authority, who shall consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. A copy of the order shall be sent to the respondents for fresh hearing of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. The appeal shall be disposed of as early as possible say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the matter is an old one. The petitioner shall be given a personal hearing, if a request is made by him to the Appellate Authority. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. There is no order as to costs.