PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.
***
CWP No. 15949 of 2009
Date of Decision: 30.10.2009
***
Director, Public Instructions U.T.Chandigarh Vs. Sham Lal and others.
***
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover.
***
Present: Shri Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
***
T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)
This petition calls in question two orders dated 23.01.2009 and the other dated
20.03.2009 whereby the Tribunal has set aside order of removal dated 16.06.2006 passed
by the Director, Public Instructions, Chandigarh Administration in terms of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970 as applicable to the employees of U.T.
Chandigarh against Shri Sham Lal who during the relevant period was working as Work
Experience Instructor in Government High School, Karsan.
A reading of the orders impugned in this petition would show that the Tribunal
has observed that the orders passed by the Director Public Instructions and also by the
Education Secretary dated 23.11.2006 to be totally a non speaking orders. It has,
accordingly, set aside both the orders and remanded the case back to the Director, Public
Instructions to pass a fresh order on the subject.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders
passed by the Tribunal as also those passed by the Director, Public Instructions and the
Appellate Authority. Both the orders are indeed non-speaking orders in as much as they do
not disclose the defence set up by the employee nor do they discuss the reasons why the
same was found to be unsatisfactory.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that since the employee
had admitted the embezzlement. there was no need to elaborate that aspect while removing
him from service or while dismissing his appeal. We do not think so. The orders passed by
the Director, Public Instructions and the appellate authority do not even refer to the so called
admission made by the employee regarding his having committed embezzlement of funds
entrusted to him. At any rate, the orders ought to have demonstrated application of mind by
-2-
the authorities concerned to the defence set up by the delinquent official and given reasons
why they do not find the same satisfactory. Simply saying that the explanation was
unsatisfactory even does not disclose as to what was the explanation and why it was
unsatisfactory would not be appropriate exercise of the powers vested in the Director, Public
Instructions or the authorities dismissing the appeal.
In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the orders
passed by the Tribunal especially when the Tribunal has simply directed the punishing
authority i.e. The Director, Public Instructions to pass a fresh order in accordance with law,
which necessarily means that he may ought to pass a speaking order. The writ petition
accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
(T.S.Thakur)
Chief Justice
(Mahesh Grover)
October 30 2009 Judge
Malik