SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Himanshu, Advocate holding the brief of Sri Havaldar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri S. Shekhar for the respondents no.2 to 4.
(2.) CONSIDERING the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court. I proceed accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that enquiry was conducted by the appointing authority himself and he had not appointed any enquiry officer. However, he could not show any provision or otherwise law that appointing authority is not competent to conduct enquiry himself but has to appoint enquiry officer. He further contended that along with order of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the respondents have illegally denied the full salary to the petitioner for the period he remain under suspension. Inasmuch as it is not one of the punishment prescribed in the rule and in case it is referable to Fundamental Rule 54-B, such order forfeiting salary during the period of suspension cannot be passed without issuing a show cause notice in this regard and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) PER contra learned counsel for the respondents stated that in absence of any provision the disciplinary authority himself can conduct enquiry or assign the same to any person lower in rank to the disciplinary authority as an Enquiry Officer and get the enquiry conducted through him. He said that there is no illegality in this regard. He further contended that so far as denial of full salary during the period of suspension is concerned, the application of Fundamental Rule though is admitted but it is contended that in the same order not only the punishment can be imposed but an order regarding full salary during the period of suspension can also be passed and hence the impugned order warrants no interference.;