BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 19.8.1995.

(2.) Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted inquiry report dated 21.3.1998 to the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner was supplied with the inquiry report on 1.4.1998. He made representation against the same on 4.5.1998. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 11.5.2000. Petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been rejected on 28.4.2001. Petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the inquiry report and the petitioner has made representation against the same on 4.5.1998. The same was required to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority in right perspective before passing the order. The purpose of granting an opportunity to make representation against the inquiry report to the delinquent is to enable him to point out short comings/deficiencies during the course of the inquiry. What has been stated by the Disciplinary Authority in the instant case is that the representation was not satisfactory without dealing with the points raised by the incumbent in the representation. Order dated 11.5.2000 is laconic and cryptic. It is well settled law that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority must be detailed and speaking. Similarly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 28.4.2001 is cryptic. He was required to take into consideration all the pleas raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred against order dated 11.5.2000. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: