The court emphasized the need for a reasoned decision on the penalty and upheld the petitioner's right to the deemed date of promotion.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa J. - Petitioner who was serving as Senior Executive Engineer under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, now stands retired w.e.f. 31.05.2019.

2. Petitioner raises a challenge in the instant petition to an order of penalty dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) whereby his two annual increments with cumulative effect were with-held as also recovery of Rs.69,535/- was imposed. The order of penalty stands affirmed by the Appellate Authority in terms of order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P-6). A writ of mandamus has also been sought for directing the respondent-Corporation to grant to the petitioner the deemed date of promotion on the post of Senior Executive Engineer w.e.f. 29.09.2004 i.e. the date when his juniors were promoted as opposed to 26.09.2006 when the petitioner was actually promoted to such post.

3. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

4. In the considered view of this Court the validity of the order of punishment dated 27.11.2006 at Annexure P-4 need not be examined on merits at this stage. Such view is being taken as the facts make out a case for remand to the Appellate Authority for a decision afresh.

5. Admittedly, the order of punishment dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) was passed upon culmination of departmental proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner. A statutory appeal at Annexure P-5 was preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty. Perusal of the same would reveal that a number of grounds and submissions had been raised. It would not be necessary for this Court to delve into the same in detail. Suffice it to observe that one of the grounds taken in the appeal was that the order of penalty dated 27.11.2006 is a composite order of punishment imposing a major as also a minor penalty. It had been contented by the petitioner that under the relevant punishment and appeal rules such course could not have been adopted. That apart it had been stated in the appeal that no cogent and clinching evidence had come forth during the course of enquiry proceedings so as to support the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) in the following terms:-

"As though, appeal of the officer considered by the Competent Officers, Complementary Directors in their 56 th meeting which held at Patiala on 30.8.2011 and below mentioned order got passed: -

The Committee after discussion on the details given in the memorandum passed the following resolution: -RESOLVED THAT considering Charge Sheet issued on the basis of findings of Technical Audit, the gravity of charges leveled, reply of the officer, comments of the higher office given on the reply of the officer. Remarks of the Officer conducting Departmental Enquiry, the appeal of Er. Amrik Singh Virdi (code No.3828) against Office Order No.738/D-7871 dated 27.11.2006 containing the facts already considered at the time of decision of the Chargesheet be and is hereby rejected.

So, according to the above said order of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, appeal of Er. Amrik Singh Virdi, Sen. E. Er. (Code-3828) is dismissed and remain enforce the orders of recovering the loss amount of Rs.68535/- from him and for withholding his two annual increments with cumulative effect."

6. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is a cryptic non-speaking order. The contentions and grounds raised by the petitioner in the statutory appeal have not even been adverted to much less dealt with. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15.09.2011 at Annexure P-6 as such cannot sustain. The same is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh and to pass a reasoned order after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is however cla