- (1.) HEARD Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajal Krishna for the petitioner.
(2.) THE only submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Rule 9(4) of (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as '1999 Rules') provides that after recording its own reasoned finding on the charges on disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority shall furnish a copy of the inquiry report alongwith its findings to the delinquent employee, requiring him to submit his reply and after receiving the reply, if any, shall pass a reasoned order imposing punishment, if any. He submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order of punishment dated 9.6.2004 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that ex facie it is unreasoned and non -speaking order and, therefore, is in breach of Rule 9(2) and (4) of 1999 Rules. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that the order dated 9.6.2004 must be read along with the reasons communicated to the delinquent employee alongwith show cause notice which would be deemed to be a part and parcel of the punishment order and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any non compliance of Rule 9(4).
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;