TEK CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed memo dated 1.3.1991 alongwith charge -sheet (Annexure P -3), inquiry report dated 11.12.1991 (Annexure P -11), punishment order dated 15.2.1992 (Annexure P -19) and appellate order dated 7.6.2003 (Annexure P -24).

(2.) The crux of the submissions made by Mr. Bimal during the course of argument is that appellate order dated 17th June, 2002 Preferred against the penalty dated 15th February, 1992 is not a speaking order. Mr. Bimal Gupta has urged strenuously that all the grounds mentioned in the appeal, i.e. Annexure P -23/A have not been taken into consideration by the appellate Authority which has led to grave miscarriage of justice.

(3.) Mr. Bimla Gupta has also taken me through Rule 47 of the Central Industrial Security Rules, 1969 to buttress his submission that the appellate authority was bound to consider that the procedure prescribed in the rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non -compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution of in failure of justice.