The appellate authority must provide reasons for affirming an order, and the disciplinary authority must adhere to the prescribed procedure in departmental inquiries.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

1. The petitioner, who was serving as a Science Mistress in the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, District Sonepat, has filed the instant petition, impugning the order dated 9/10th of September, 2009 (Annexure P-26), whereby she has been dismissed from service. Challenge has also made to the order dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P-30) passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Sports Department, in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the major punishment of dismissal from service has been affirmed. The petitioner even questions the legality of the inquiry proceedings initiated against her and which have finally culminated in the passing of order of dismissal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that the validity of the order of dismissal dated 9/10th of September, 2009 (Annexure P-26) passed by respondent No.3 i.e. the Principal and Director, Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, Sonepat, as also the legality of the inquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner, would not require any examination on merits, at this stage. Such a view is being taken for the reason that the facts of the present case make out a case for remand to respondent No.1 i.e. Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, Haryana, Chandigarh, for reconsideration.

3. The admitted position of fact is that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing following Articles of Charge :-

“Charge (a) : She levelled false and baseless charges against the school authority that the teachers are called on duties on one pretext or the other on odd hours just to derive some sadistic pleasure out of it and as a result of it, Ms. Payal Arya, Ms. Asha Mittal and Ms. Saroj Kumari had to leave their jobs.

Charge (b) : She quoted wrong information regarding working hours. She quoted working hours as 13 hours per day, while these were approx 7.30 hours per day only.

Charge (c) : She created hurdles in the smooth functioning of the school by painting wrong picture of working culture in the school and vitiated conducive environment of a residential school.

Charge (d) : She disobeyed the orders of the authority by not appearing personally before the Director of Sports, Haryana & the then Ist Appellate Authority on 14.11.2006. Though she was on “Duty Master” duty on that day, but this duty was assigned to Mr. Shailender Nimbekar and he performed the duty in her place.

Charge (e): She has gone beyond her jurisdiction to challenge the wisdom of the Commissioner & Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs, Haryana, by terming the orders passed by him vide order dated 14.02.2007 as “Perverse and Arbitrary”.

4. The charges were contained in the charge sheet served upon the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Punishment and Appeal Rules”). The inquiry report was furnished by the Inquiry Officer on 15.07.2009. The disciplinary authority, upon agreeing with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer, has passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 9/10th of September, 2009.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 03.09.2010 under Rule 9 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules and a copy thereof has been appended and placed on record at Annexure P-27 along with the instant petition. A bare perusal of such statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, would reveal that apart from other issues, certain crucial and relevant grounds were raised. Such grounds were that the Inquiry Officer had insisted upon the petitioner/delinquent to make her statement as a defence witness first in point of time without examining any of the witnesses mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses appended with the charge sheet. In a nut shell, the petitioner had raised a specific plea in the appeal that due process and p