1 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2807 of 2026 Decided on: 23.03.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surinder Paul …..Petitioner Versus The Registrar Co-operative Societies, H.P and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner joined the respondent-bank as Class- IV employee on regular basis on 27.08.2002. He was promoted as Clerk Grade-IV on 12.09.2012. A charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner in terms of Rule 56(b) of Rules relating to the Terms of Employment and Working Conditions of the Employees of the respondent-bank on 04.07.2022. Allegations levelled against him inter-alia related to transfer of amount in gross violation of banking norms 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) and procedure. Petitioner filed his written statement on 20.07.2022 denying the charge levelled against him. Respondent ordered inquiry against the petitioner on 07.11.2022. The Inquiry Officer furnished his inquiry report on 04.07.2024 concluding that charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Respondent No.3- The Managing Director of the respondent-bank vide order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-10) imposed major penalty of termination from service upon the petitioner. 1(ii). Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred appeal on 14.11.2024 under Rule 64(a) read with Appendix-1(a) of the H.P. Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., “Rules Relating to the Terms of Employment and Working Conditions of the Employees of the Bank amended from time to time.” Petitioner raised several grounds therein against the penalty imposed upon him. He also questioned the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in issuing the penalty order contending that in view of petitioner being Grade-IV employee, the Disciplinary Authority was the General Manager whereas the Managing Director of the respondent- bank was the 1st appellate authority and Board of Directors of respondent-bank was 2ndappellate authority. 3 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) Petitioner’s appeal was decided by the Board of Directors of respondent-Bank vide resolution No.10 dated 10.03.2025 as under:- “The BOD persused the contents of the appeal and the narration of events given in the agenda. It was observed that the charges which were proved against the appellant were very serious in nature involving serious pecuniary irregularities. Being satisfied with the procedure adopted during the inquiry, the BOD concurred with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and resolved to reject the appeal of Shri Surender Paul.” The above decision of the Board of Directors was conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No.3 under order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-12). 1(iii). Petitioner feels aggrieved against penalty imposed upon him and also by the rejection of his appeal against the penalty order, hence, has preferred this writ petition. 2. Following order was passed in this matter on 18.03.2026:- “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4, respectively. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 prays for and is allowed three days’ time to have instructions in the matter, more specifically vis-à-vis the contention raised about the impugned order at Annexure P-12, dated 17.03.2025, being non-speaking. List on 23.03.2026.” 4 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) 3. Pursuant to above, learned counsel for contesting respondents No. 2 to 4 has placed on record instructions dated 21.03.2026. Looking to the nature of grievances raised in the petition, hearing in the matter held on 18.03.2026 & today as also keeping in view the instructions placed on record by the respondent, reply to this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised grievance that decision taken by the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors on 10.03.2025 as communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.3 in the order dated 17.03.2025 is absolutely non-speaking. Petitioner had raised several points in the appeal preferred against the penalty imposed upon him by respondent No.3 in the order dated 15.10.2024. The petitioner had raised not only grounds on merits to oppose the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the report but had also questioned the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 in having issued the penalty order on 15.10.2024 on the ground that in the case of the petitioner a Class-IV employee, the Disciplinary Authority was General Manager whereas respondent No.3 was 1st 5 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) Appellate Authority and Board of Directors was the 2nd Appellate Authority. By act of respondent No.3 in issuing the penalty order, the petitioner was deprived of the first appeal available under the applicable rules. Further the Board of Directors has simply rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner without any independent application of mind and without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that petitioner has been discriminated with similarly situated employees facing similar disciplinary proceedings. Reference in this regard was made to orders appended at Annexures P-14 and P15. 5. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and others2 Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that reasons are to be recorded, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. Relevant para of the decision reads as under:- “47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a). In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b). A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c). Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. 2(2010)9 SCC 496, decided on 08.09.2010 6 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) (d). Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f). Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g). Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h). The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i). Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j). Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k). If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l). Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber- stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m). It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n). Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of 7 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Rioz Tproka v/ Saom EJRR. At 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o). In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". In Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court after taking note of its several precedents in timeline reiterated that departmental proceedings are quasi judicial in nature. In the given facts of that case, order of Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority being not supported by reasons were quashed as under:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by 3(2009) 2 SCC 570, decided on 19.12.2008. 8 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. 24. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs and appellant is directed to be reinstated with full back wages. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.” The instructions placed on record by the respondents give credence to the submissions made for the petitioner. In terms of the instructions after narrating the factual history of the case and the agenda pertaining to petitioner’s appeal placed before the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors has simply observed that the charge proved against the petitioner was serious in nature involving serious pecuniary irregularities and being satisfied with the procedure adopted during the inquiry, the Board of Directors concurred with the decision of 9 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) Disciplinary Authority and accordingly, resolved to reject petitioner’s appeal. No reasons can be discerned from the impugned decision for rejecting petitioner’s appeal. Instructions placed on record by respondents No. 2 to 4 lead to an inference that before the Board of Directors, it was presented by the respondents as if only point raised by the petitioner was in form of a request to consider his case sympathetically in view of his long service & being the sole bread earner. This was factually incorrect. It has to be borne in mind that appeal preferred by the petitioner was the first appeal against the penalty of termination from service imposed upon him and had raised various issues not only on the merits of the inquiry report/ findings, but had also alleged wrong & unlawful procedure followed during inquiry, infraction of law & applicable rules. Petitioner has questioned the competence of respondent No.3 in issuing the penalty order on the ground that in the case of petitioner- a grade-IV employee, the General Manager was the Disciplinary Authority; Issuance of penalty order by respondent No.3 has denied the petitioner his right of first appeal before respondent No.3 and second appeal before the Board of Directors. The grounds raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the appellate authority while 10 ( 2026:HHC:8450 ) deciding the appeal. The decision on petitioner’s appeal is unreasoned and non-speaking. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that order dated 17.03.2025 passed by respondent No.3 conveying the decision of the Board of Directors of respondent-bank vide resolution No.10 dated 10.03.2025 alongwith said decision of the Board of Directors are quashed and set-aside. The Competent Authority of the respondent Bank is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 15.10.2024, afresh in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. In the aforesaid process keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, an opportunity of hearing be also given to the petitioner to enable him to place on record any further document in support of his appeal. This exercise be carried out within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 23, 2026 Judge yogesh