SUNIL JARET Vs. Y.S. PARMAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and charge-sheet was served on him on 29th May, 1999. Shri O.P. Sharma was appointed the Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 23rd May, 2000. The copy of inquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner on 1st July, 2000. He filed detailed representation against the same vide Annexure A-8, dated 22nd July, 2000. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect on 11th August, 2000. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against order dated 11th Augut, 2000. The appellate authority substituted the penalty by reducing the penalty of withholding of one increment instead of three increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 15th January, 2001. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are non-speaking orders.

(2.) The disciplinary authority has supplied copy of the inquiry report to the Petitioner on 1st July, 2000. He filed detailed reply to the same. The reply/representation made by the Petitioner to the inquiry report was required to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority in depth. The purpose of supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent is to enable him to point out deficiencies, flaws and shortcomings in the inquiry. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727, have held as under:

(3.) In the present case, the disciplinary authority has not considered all the points raised by the Petitioner in his representation made against the inquiry report.