D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) The petitioner, an Accountant in the Haryana Development and Panchayat Department, posted in the Office of the Block Development and Pachayat Officer, Chhachroli, district Ambala, was served with a charge-sheet under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, vide letter dated 23.1.1973 Annexure P.l vide which as many as 5 charges were levelled against him. He submitted his reply Annexure P. 2 to the charge sheet. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer vide his report Annexure P. 3 returned a finding that two out of the five charges, levelled against him were proved. Thereupon, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 9.9.1975 Annexure P 4 to which he submitted his reply dated 23.9.1975 Annexure P 5. The Secretary to Government, Haryana. Development and Panchayat Department, who is the punishing authority in the case of the petitioner by simply enumerating the nature of the charges against him and the fact that an enquiry report had been received and on issuance of a show-cause notice proposing penalty of removal from service, the petitioner has submitted his representation in response thereto, passed an order dated 23.3.77 Annexure P.6 imposing penalty on the petitioner of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal and memorial Annexures P. 7 and P. 9 against the order of imposition of penalty Annexure P. 6 but these were dismissed vide orders Annexure P. 8 and P- 10 respectively. The petitioner as a result filed the present writ petition in this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure P. 6 and the orders Annexures P. 8 and P. 10 passed on his appeal and memorial.
(2.) The learnd counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order imposing penalty Annexure P. 6 is not a speaking order. It does not set out the process of reasoning by which the punishing authority reached at the conclusion that the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect should be imposed on the petitioner. No doubt the order extends to over two pages but it simply sets out the details of the charges levelled against him, the fact that the enquiry report had been received, he had been served with a show-cause notice to which he had submitted a reply, but no reason is recorded why the punishing authority formed the view that the punishment should be inflicted upon him. Likewise the learned counsel contended that the orders Annexures P. 8 and P. 10 passed on his appeal and memorial are also non-speaking orders. It is well settled that an order imposing even a minor penalty entails civil consequences and it should be a speaking order. The impugned orders are, therefore, violative of the rules of natural justice, and cannot be sustained.
(3.) I, therefore, allow this writ petition, quash the order of punishment Annexure P. 6 and the orders passed on appeal and memorial of the petitioner, Annexures P. 8 and P. 10. The respondents may, however, if deem proper, pass any fresh order which is considered appropriate in the circumstances after recording reasons for the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;