JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

“(i) Order dated 12.11.2020 passed by Chancellor, H.P. University rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, as communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P7 and P8, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) Order dated 27.2.2020 (Annexure P5) passed by Disciplinary Authority (Executive Council, H.P. University) concurring with the enquiry report Annexure P3 and awarding punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. The petitioner, while being posted at Enquiry Section/Sale Counter with the assignment to sell prospectus of ICEDOL, was issued memorandum of charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. After completion of inquiry, a copy of inquiry report was delivered to the petitioner on 20.12.2019, wherein he was indicted for different charges.

3. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation against inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority, however the Disciplinary Authority rejected the representation on 27.2.2020 by passing the following order (Annexure P5):

“Whereas an inquiry under Rule14 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was held against Shri Babu Ram, Section Officer(Under Suspension);

And whereas, Shri Babu Ram made a written representation against the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, a copy of which was forwarded to the said Shri Babu Ram;

And whereas after a careful consideration of the inquiry report alongwith the written representation of Shri Babu Ram, the Executive Council is of the considered view that articles of charge having been conclusively proved thus the said Shri Babu Ram is guilty of forging/destruction of official record and embezzling the sale proceeds of the prospectus to the tune of Rs. 1,14,45000/- Rs. One crore fourteen lac forty five thousands only) for the period of 2011-12 to 2017-18. Shri Babu Ram has therefore, acted in a manner harmful to the University, warranting the imposition of major penalty upon him; Now, therefore, the Executive Council, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule15( 4) of the ibid rules read with Ordinance 35.7 of the First Ordinances of the Himachal Pradesh University (as amended upto March, 2015), as per Rule 11(ix) of the ibid Rule, hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal from the services of the University upon Shri Babu Ram, Section Officer (under suspension). The Executive Council has further decided that in view of the proviso2 below the ibid Rule, the total embezzled sale proceeds of prospectus may be recovered from the moveable and immovable property of Shri Babu Ram by going through the legal process.

By order and in the name of the Executive Council).”

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Chancellor of the respondent-University by filing an appeal, which also came to be rejected by according the following reasons:

“Appeal Reject.”

5. It would be noticed that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as also by the appellate authority are bereft of any reasons and thus, are liable to be set aside.

6. It is well settled that disciplinary inquiry being quasi-judicial in nature has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play.

7. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform the appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound j