DINANATH DHOTE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect passed by the Collector, district Mandsaur on 31.03.2005 Annexure P-5, and further aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2006, Annexure P-7, passed by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Ujjain Division, this petition has been proffered.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short, but substantial issue that the appellate authority has not discussed the points as raised by them and without assigning any reasons confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority, while dismissing the appeal vide order Anneuxre P-7. However, such an order is un-sustainable in law. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Vs. Registrar General, M.P.High Court, Jabalpur reported in 2005 (2) MPLJ 51.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it appears that the appellate authority, while passing the order Annexure P-7 dated 3.05.2006 has referred the facts in para 4 stating that the reply to the show cause notice was filed belatedly after giving opportunities and warning and thereafter referring the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissed the appeal. It is to be observed here that while exercising quasi judicial powers, Courts are required to discuss the point raised before them and assigning reasons, supported by law, bound to pass the orders in detail. In this regard guidance may be taken from the judgment of Mohd. Idris (Supra).