- (1.) Initially the petitioner challenged the inquiry report dated 10.03.2009 being vitiated by the principles of natural justice and bias. At the time of moving the instant writ petition an interim order was passed on 06.04.2009 permitting the respondent authorities to proceed with the inquiry proceeding but no final order should be passed within a period of 10 weeks from date without the express leave of the court. The respondent authorities were permitted to file affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition.
(2.) During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment on withholding two increments from the date of the suspension. By filing the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought the said subsequent event and intended to assail the said order inflicting punishment by way of withholding two increments to the petitioner. The respondents could not deny the factum of passing the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) A point is raised by the respondent authorities that without amending the writ petition the order inflicting punishment should not be permitted to be agitated and/or challenged in the writ petition on the basis of a supplementary affidavit.;