- (1.) Without entering into the merits of the case, this petition deserves to succeed on the short ground that the impugned order dated December 6, 2012 [annex P-4] is a non-speaking order containing no reasons whatsoever for dismissing the appeal. The right to appeal is provided by Regulation 47 of the Faridkot Bathinda Ksetriya Gramin Bank, Bathinda (Punjab) (Officers and Employees) Regulations 2002 in the following terms:- "47. Right to appeal (i) An officer or employee shall have right to appeal against any order passed under these Regulations which injuriously affects his interest. (ii) The appeal shall be preferred to the Appellate Authority mentioned in Regulation 48 within 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass suitable order preferably within a period of 6 months."
(2.) The appellate authority is constituted under Regulation 48 to whom appeal shall lie. The impugned order dated December 6, 2012 deserves reproduction to see what it lacks. It reads like this:- "SUB: Your appeal dated 12.08.2011 before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 29.6.2011 of Disciplinary Authority We may inform that your captioned appeal was placed before the Appellate Authority i.e. Committee of the Board. After going through your appeal dated 12.08.2011, charge-sheet dated 10.12.2008 and record of the case, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the major penalty of 'DISMISSAL" awarded by DA vide order dated 29.6.2011 commensurate with the gravity of misconduct of CSO and dismissed the appeal. As such, your appeal dated 12.08.2011 stands dismissed and rejected."
(3.) The necessity of recording reasons in an order which adversely affects rights of parties in fundamental to the rule of law. It is an obligation cast on the administrator to abide by disclosing the reasoning which has weighed in his mind. This a strict-compliance rule of recording reasons is required to be followed keeping in view the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, 1990 4 SCC 594.;