1 2025:CGHC:3625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5253 of 2022 1 - Shri L.K. Kange S/o Shri Narad Ram Kange Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Executive Engineer In Office Of Chief Engineer (Project), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (Cspdcl), Through Its General Manager (Human Resources), Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin- 492013 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. Through Its Executive Director (Department Enquiry), Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin-492013 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Krishna Tondon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 21.01.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to departmental enquiry from the respondents. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) wherein order by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of withholding increment of pay for 2 years to petitioner has been upheld. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the appellate authority as well as the order dated 05.04.2021 by which the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment against the petitioner, while withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the said orders, no reasons have been assigned and the order of punishment has been passed by the disciplinary authority withholding two annual increments, which is not in accordance with law. He places reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of R.K. Vishwakarma vs. 3 The M.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1748 and Divisional Forest Officer, Kothaguden & Ors. vs. Madhusudhan Rao reported in AIR 2008 SC(Supp) 1479. He further submits the said orders, when the appeal was filed, the appellate authorities have also not considered it and in a very cryptic manner in paragraph 3, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority which is prima facie illegal and non-speaking order, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire aspect of the matter has been discussed and after discussion, the punishment order has been passed, therefore, it cannot be said to be a cryptic one and does not require any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record as also the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the facts of this case and further considering the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, I am of the view that it is a non-speaking order and if any order bearing civil consequences is to be passed, then it has to be passed in such a manner that not only the effect of the order may be seen but it can be really appreciated too. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 08.02.2022 and 05.04.2021 are hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4 disciplinary authority to pass a fresh reasoned order while considering each and every aspect of the matter. Thereafter, if the petitioner is dissatisfied, he would be at liberty file an appeal and the appellate authority is expected to pass reasoned orders, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha