2026:HHC:12492 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2173 of 2024 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Ravi Kumar … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Order dated 11.07.2023 passed by Appellate Authority, Annexure P-12, order dated 12.08.2022 passed by Disciplinary Authority, Annexure P-10 and inquiry report submitted with 17.03.2022 may covering letter dated kindly be held wrong, illegal arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) The Respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Executive Engineer and to promote the petitioner to the said post from the date when the DPC held in the year 2021 recommended the promotion of other Assistant Engineer and thereafter to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. c) The Respondent may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of the pay to the petitioner w.e.f., April 2022 to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:12492 October 2022. d) The Respondent may further be directed to pay the leave encashment to the petitioner alongwith upto date interest @ 12% from 31.10.2022 till it is actually paid. e) The Respondent may be directed to issued the revised PPO to the petitioner after re-determining the pensionary benefits of petitioner and to pay arrears of pensionary benefits.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a Memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 30.07.2020 (Annexure P-1), calling upon him to submit his response to the Article of Charges appended therewith, which inter alia, were to the effect that while serving as an Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub-Division, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL), Kandaghat, he committed grave misconduct and negligence in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner submitted his response thereto, but as the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied, inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who undertook the inquiry and after completion of the inquiry, he submitted the Inquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority. In terms of the Inquiry Report, Charge No.1 was not proved and Charge No.2 was proved against the petitioner. On the basis of Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Annexure P-10, dated 12.08.2022, imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect upon the 3 2026:HHC:12492 petitioner. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. 4. In terms of order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-12), Director, Personnel, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board intimated the petitioner vide order dated 11.07.2023, that the Appellate Authrotity had partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondent-Board and having perused the documents on record including the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority, this Court is of the considered view that this petition has to be allowed on one short count, i.e. the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority at the first instance is a non-speaking order and even the order of the Appellate Authority as has been communicated, does not spell out any reasons. 7. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 12.08.2022, demonstrates that the Disciplinary Authority first quoted the Article of charges and then, it referred to the chronology of the events as they took place and returned the findings of guilt in the penultimate para of the order by observing 4 2026:HHC:12492 that the representation filed by the delinquent was considered objectively with due application of mind by the Authority and taking into account the gravity of charges framed against the delinquent, coupled with the evidence led and after careful consideration of the matter, the submissions made by the petitioner were not found satisfactory. 8. This Court is of the considered view that this was not enough for returning the findings of guilt against the present petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority primarily being also the Authority as far as the evaluation of facts are concerned, was bound to discuss in some detail as to what were the allegations levelled against the petitioner, what was the material placed by the Department before the Inquiry Officer, what was the defence of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer, what were the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of material before him and on what grounds the Disciplinary Authority was concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and not agreeing with the submissions of the petitioner. All this is lacking in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The order is bereft of any reasoning and because the reasoning is the soul of the order, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is an order without any soul. 9. Now, coming to the subsequent order, i.e. order dated 5 2026:HHC:12492 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-12), this order is signed by Director, Personal, HPSEBL (for and on behalf of the Appellate Authority). This Court fails to understand, as to how can someone sign and forward a Quasi Judicial Order for and on behalf of the Appellate Authority. When an honorous task is conferred upon the Appellate Authority to decide something, then it is the obligation of the Appellate Authority to itself take a call and decide the appeal. This power can neither be delegated nor the decision of the Appellate Authority can be conveyed by any delegatee. 10. The order of the Appellate Authority, as it is passed, has to be conveyed to the party, so that he can either reconcile with the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority or if not satisfied, assail the same on account of the reasons assigned therein. This, incidently has not been done, in terms of Annexure P-12. Besides being an un-reasoned order, this Court again stresses that it apparently is not an order passed by the Appellate Authority, but it appears to be an order that has been passed by the Director, Personal, HPSEBL, on behalf of the Appellate Authority. It is not evident that Director (Personal), Himachal Pradesh was the Appellate Authority. 11. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed to the extent that order dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure P-10) and order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P-12) are 6 2026:HHC:12492 quashed and set aside. As the orders in issue have been set aside by this Court on technical grounds, the matter is relegated back to the Disciplinary Authority with the direction that the said Authority shall pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the parties, including the petitioner. Such a reasoned order be passed by the Disciplinary Authority within eight weeks from today. 12. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (Rishi)