JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) That the impugned orders dated 27.01.2007 & 18.09.2007 passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set- aside. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner as Driver in the HRTC with all consequential benefits". 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Driver with the respondent-Corporation since 1998. Vide Memorandum dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was informed that the respondent-Corporation intended to hold an inquiry against him, under Rule-14 of the (Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965 on the statement of article of charges appended with said Memorandum as Annexure A-1. The article of charges were as under:- " Article-I: That the said Sh. Khub Chand, while on the rolls of HRTC, Rohroo unit and working in the capacity of driver, during the month of February, 2005 and on dated 07.02.2005 the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver was performing his duty with bus No. HP-10/0392 while aforesaid bus was driver by the said driver from Bus Stand, Rohroo to Workshop and when he reached near Sabzi Mandi, Rohroo caused accident by the said bus with two Utilities No.HP-10/0768 and HP-10/0142 under the influence of liquor. For which the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver was also remained in Police Custody and Medical Examination has also been conducted. The Medical Officer has conducted his Medical and furnished his Medical report wherein found that the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver has consumed liquor. Taking liquor while performing the duty of driver is not only highly objectionable but also contrary to the Service Rules as well as Conduct Rules. It was the primary duty of the said Sh.Khub Chand, driver not to take liquor while he was on the active duty of driver and due (due to this act of omission and Commission) there was a scope of fatal accident and HRTC could have suffered loss of revenue alongwith loss of invaluable human lives. But he has failed to perform his duty properly. Hence charge No.1 is against him. Article-2: While Sh.Khub Chand, driver was on the rolls of HRTC, Rohroo unit consumed liquor while performing the duty & also caused accident on 07.02.2005 and thus acted negligently while performing his legitimate assigned duties." 3. But he has failed to perform his duty properly. Hence charge No.1 is against him. Article-2: While Sh.Khub Chand, driver was on the rolls of HRTC, Rohroo unit consumed liquor while performing the duty & also caused accident on 07.02.2005 and thus acted negligently while performing his legitimate assigned duties." 3. In these proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and vide Annexure P-2, i.e. Office Order dated 27.01.2007, Regional Manager, HRTC, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Annexure P-3, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide Office Order dated 18.09.2007 and the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide forwarding letter, dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-4). It is further the case of the petitioner that an FIR was registered against him under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and criminal proceedings stood initiated against him, vide case No.218-2 of 2007/05, titled as State of H.P. Versus Khub Chand, in which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months alongwith fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. 5. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction was allowed and the judgment of learned Trial Court was set aside by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal appeal No.22-S/10 of 2008, titled as Khub Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.01.2013. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure P-6, for reinstatement to the service but the same stands rejected, vide Annexures P7 and P-8, by the respondent-Corporation, on the ground that the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings were on different grounds. It is in this background that present petition stands filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 7. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondent-Corporation, inter alia, on the ground that the action taken by the respondent-Corporation against the petitioner was in accordance with law and rules of the respondent-Corporation. It is in this background that present petition stands filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 7. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondent-Corporation, inter alia, on the ground that the action taken by the respondent-Corporation against the petitioner was in accordance with law and rules of the respondent-Corporation. It is further the stand of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner was granted several opportunities by the Inquiry Officer to submit his defence against the charges between 12.07.2005 and 03.05.2006 and an advertisement was also published in daily newspaper "Amar Ujala", on 02.03.2006 intimating the petitioner about the inquiry, but the petitioner did not come forward for his examination in inquiry and thereafter, charges were proved against him, which subsequently lead to the order of removal on the basis of the Inquiry Report conducted by the Inquiry Officer. 8. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated his stand taken in the petition and denied the stand of the respondent-Corporation taken in the reply. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 10. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the charges that the petitioner had consumed liquor while performing his duties as a Driver, on 07.02.2005 and had caused accident under the influence of liquor and further that the act of the petitioner of consuming liquor while on duty and causing accident on 07.02.2005 was a negligent act while performing his assigned duties. 11. Now, when one peruses the Office Order, dated 27.01.2007, vide which the punishment for removal of service was imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, one finds that no reasoning is assigned in the said order by the Disciplinary Authority, justifying removal of the petitioner from service on the basis of the charges framed against him as well the Inquiry Report. Though, it is a matter of record that the petitioner did not associate himself with the course of the inquiry, yet the Disciplinary Authority was bound to act in a Quasi-Judicial manner and after taking into consideration the charges leveled against the petitioner as well as the report of the Inquiry Officer he was bound to assign reasons, based on the Inquiry Report, while imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. However, rather than doing this, what the Disciplinary Authority has done is that after observing that the petitioner did not participate in the process of inquiry held, it was crystal clear that the petitioner was not interested in serving with the respondentCorporation anymore and his return in the Corporation would not be fruitful for the respondent-Corporation. On the basis of said justification contained in the above mentioned two lines, the Disciplinary Authority held that it had reached the final conclusion that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service. 12. To be more precise, the relevant portion of the Office Order, dated 27.01.2007 is being quoted hereinbelow:- "The undersigned has considered the findings of the Inquiry Authority as well as relevant record of the case and observed that Sh. Khub Chand, Driver was performing his duty with Bus No.HP10/0392 when reached at near Sabzi Mandi, Rohroo caused accident by collided with the said bus with two Utilities and also the said Sh. Khub Chand, Driver was driving the bus under the influence of liquor and was also remain in policy custody. During the course of enquiry, he failed to associate with the enquiry process in the departmental enquiry initiated against him inspite of number of summons issued to him and even when the notice on this effect was published in Aamar Ujala' on 02.03.2006 for holding exparte Inquiry. The Enquiry Authority therefore, conducted the enquiry exparte in his absence. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in his absence and the said Sh. Khub Chand, Driver was not refuted the evidence examined in the enquiry which prove that he has nothing to say. He was served with the Show Cause Notice and a copy of enquiry report was also supplied to him. He has submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 20.09.2006 and has requested to give him 15 days time for submission of his reply. Thereafter, on 03.01.2007 he has again submitted a reply which was duly considered by the undersigned and found un-satisfactory. From the above position, it is crystal clear that he is not interested to serve the Corporation anymore and his further return in the Corporation would not be proved fruitful for the organization. Thus, the undersigned has reached the final conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained in service. From the above position, it is crystal clear that he is not interested to serve the Corporation anymore and his further return in the Corporation would not be proved fruitful for the organization. Thus, the undersigned has reached the final conclusion that he is not a fit person to be retained in service. Now, therefore, the undersigned after having gone through the whole record of the case and keeping in view the totality of the case in exercise of the powers vested in him under Rules 11 to 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal), Rules, 1965 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, hereby imposes the penalty of REMOVAL FROM SERVIE upon the said Sh. Khub Chand, Driver, HRTC, Rohroo with immediate effect to meet the end of justice. Further, nothing will be paid over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him for the period of suspension w.e.f. 08.02.2005 till his removal from service." 13. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal. The order which has been passed by the Appellate Authority, is even more cryptic. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority in the following terms:- "Whereas the Regional Manager, HRTC, Rohroo, vide office order No.HRTC;R;1(1438)/2004-7021-25 dated 27/01/07 has imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the said Shri Khub Chand, driver; AND WHEREAS, against the aforesaid penalty Sh. Khub Chand, Ex-driver has preferred an appeal dated 08/05/07; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned after going through the appeal and entire record, the appeal preferred by said Shri. Khub Chand, ex-driver is hereby rejected." 14. It is well settled law that the Quasi Judicial Authorities while deciding the rights of the parties are bound to pass reasoned and speaking orders. The rational as to why a reasoned and speaking order should be passed by a QuasiJudicial authority is that contents of the order should be selfexplanatory as to why the conclusion has been arrived at by the authority concerned. 15. In this case, there were two articles of charges framed against the petitioner. The inquiry was held on said two articles of charges and the Inquiry Report was also submitted by the Inquiry Officer. In the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no discussion on the charges with reference to the Inquiry report. 16. 15. In this case, there were two articles of charges framed against the petitioner. The inquiry was held on said two articles of charges and the Inquiry Report was also submitted by the Inquiry Officer. In the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no discussion on the charges with reference to the Inquiry report. 16. The penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that he was not interested to serve the Corporation and his return would not be fruitful for the organization, whereas this was not the scope of the Disciplinary Proceedings. This demonstrates that the impugned order, dated 27.01.2007 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority without any due application of mind. 17. Similarly, even the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without due application of mind. This Court is alive to the fact that the Appellate Authority while concurring with the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority, need not give elaborate reasons, but then this does not mean that no reasons whatsoever are to be assigned by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal. The Appellate Authority has to assign some minimal reasons while disposing of the appeal, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. 18. Therefore, on these counts, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure P-2, i.e. Office Order dated 27.01.2007, as well as by the Appellate Authority, vide Office Order dated 18.09.2007 (Annexure P-3), are quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders on the basis of the Inquiry Report as well as the response submitted by the petitioner to the Inquiry Report. In case, the petitioner so desires, then the Disciplinary Authority shall give personal hearing to the petitioner. 19. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.