SUDHIR KAUSHIK Vs. THE DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2011, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 129 of 2011 (S/S), whereby said Court has dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the Appellant, and learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. From the perusal of the record of the writ petition in which all the relevant papers are annexed, it is clear that the writ Petitioner was given due opportunity of being heard, and there appears no illegality in holding him guilty with another employee Rakesh Nigam. As far as the punishment awarded by the District Judge is concerned, in our opinion same too does not appear disappropriate to the charge found to be proved. However, learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to Fundamental Rule 29 of Financial Hand Book Volume II, Part II to IV wherein it is required that while lowering down the pay scale of a employee in the punishment order it should be specified that for what period the employee shall remain in such scale. In our opinion the order of punishment passed by District Judge requires clarification to that effect.