Ajit Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner was charge sheeted by the department for his alleged misbehaviour with the Medical Officer and the Inquiry Committee held him guilty of the charge but made recommendation only for withholding three increments. On a consideration of reply to show cause issued to the petitioner for major penalty of dismissal from service, the disciplinary authority referred to the report and then recorded that reply submitted by the petitioner (delinquent employee) was not found satisfactory and thus, passed the impugned order of dismissal from service.
(3.) The petitioner raised inter alia grounds of non consideration of his reply by the disciplinary authority, the order being cryptic, sans reasons and that there was no proper appreciation / appraisal of evidence, inasmuch as, there was no evidence at all, as the very report regarding petitioner having drunk on the fateful day was not got proved by medical officer. The appellate authority too, only referred to the findings of the inquiry report as well as the points raised in the appeal but without recording any independent finding on the issues raised in the appeal, dismissed the same. The main ground for assailing the impugned order is that the disciplinary authority in the first instance passed a highly cryptic order without adverting to the points raised in the reply to the show cause of the petitioner and without discussing the reply as a whole, submitted by the petitioner to show cause notice.;