Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The two issues which arise for determination in this appeal are; 1) Whether it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for agreeing with the Enquiry Officers report when the delinquent officer has submitted a representation challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer 2) Whether the Disciplinary Authority is bound to issue notice to the delinquent officer before passing the order of punishment
(3.) The respondent was employed as an Assistant Materials Manager with the appellant. It is alleged that Lot No.259 consisting of 36,000 jute bags supplied by M/s. Swastik Laminated Industries to the appellant No.1 was found to be defective and was rejected. The rejected bags were required to be returned to the supplier after they had been defaced. On the allegation that the respondent did not adhere to the procedure and instructions while despatching the 36,000 jute bags to the supplier and had not defaced them, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report in which he held as follows :- Charge No.1 "There is no laid down procedure in writing for defacement or rejected bags, and proper procedure had not been adopted to deliver the rejected bags to supplier, Shri P.K. Khanna alone is not responsible for this lapse. The Charge No.1 is therefore proved to the extent that Shri P.K. Khanna had not ensured the defacement of 36,000 bags when gate passes were issued by him. Charge No.2 :- Charge No.2 proved as Shri P.K. Khanna did not get all the rejected bags defaced before issued (sic) of outgoing gate passes thereby showing interest and took hasty actions in despatching, loading of trucks and issue of outgoing gate passes for rejected lot No.259 of jute bags to M/s. SLI Bahadurgarh". ;