Quasi Judicial Authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking orders, and minimal reasons must be assigned while disposing of appeals.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That the impugned orders dated 27.01.2007 & 18.09.2007 passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set- aside.

(ii) That the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner as Driver in the HRTC with all consequential benefits".

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Driver with the respondent-Corporation since 1998. Vide Memorandum dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was informed that the respondent-Corporation intended to hold an inquiry against him, under Rule-14 of the (Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965 on the statement of article of charges appended with said Memorandum as Annexure A-1. The article of charges were as under:-

" Article-I:

That the said Sh. Khub Chand, while on the rolls of HRTC, Rohroo unit and working in the capacity of driver, during the month of February, 2005 and on dated 07.02.2005 the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver was performing his duty with bus No. HP-10/0392 while aforesaid bus was driver by the said driver from Bus Stand, Rohroo to Workshop and when he reached near Sabzi Mandi, Rohroo caused accident by the said bus with two Utilities No.HP-10/0768 and HP-10/0142 under the influence of liquor. For which the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver was also remained in Police Custody and Medical Examination has also been conducted. The Medical Officer has conducted his Medical and furnished his Medical report wherein found that the said Sh. Khub Chand, driver has consumed liquor. Taking liquor while performing the duty of driver is not only highly objectionable but also contrary to the Service Rules as well as Conduct Rules. It was the primary duty of the said Sh.Khub Chand, driver not to take liquor while he was on the active duty of driver and due (due to this act of omission and Commission) there was a scope of fatal accident and HRTC could have suffered loss of revenue alongwith loss of invaluable human lives. But he has failed to perform his duty properly. Hence charge No.1 is against him.

Article-2:

While Sh.Khub Chand, driver was on the rolls of HRTC, Rohroo unit consumed liquor while performing the duty & also caused accident on 07.02.2005 and thus acted negligently while performing his legitimate assigned duties."

3. In these proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte and vide Annexure P-2, i.e. Office Order dated 27.01.2007, Regional Manager, HRTC, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Annexure P-3, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide Office Order dated 18.09.2007 and the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide forwarding letter, dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-4). It is further the case of the petitioner that an FIR was registered against him under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and criminal proceedings stood initiated against him, vide case No.218-2 of 2007/05, titled as State of H.P. Versus Khub Chand, in which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months alongwith fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.

5. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction was allowed and the judgment of learned Trial Court was set aside by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal appeal No.22-S/10 of 2008, titled as Khub Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.01.2013.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure P-6, for reinstatement to the service but the same stands rejected, vide Annexures P7 and P-8, by the respondent-Corporation, on the ground that the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings were on different grounds. It is in this background that present petition stands filed by the petit