S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was charge sheeted. Thereafter, a regular departmental inquiry was held. All the charges against the petitioner were held to be proved. In accordance with the rules, the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. After quoting extensively from the charge -sheet, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are as follows : - "9. Whereas the UPSC for the reasons given in their letter F.3/284/97 -SI dated 17.3.1999 have come to the conclusion that all the charges framed against Shri. B.S. Dharni, are fully proved and advised the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement on Shri B.S. Dharni. A copy of the above said UPSC letter is enclosed. 10. Now, therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record, report of the Inquiry Officer and advice tendered by the UPSC, the President holds that both the articles of charge stand fully proved against Shri B.S. Dharni, AC (Now Deputy Commandant), 1TBP and accept the advice of the UPSC for reasons advanced by them. The President has come to the conclusion that good and sufficient reasons exists to impose on Shri B.S. Dharni, AC (Now Dy, Commandant), 1TB Police, the penalty of compulsory retirement." 3. A perusal of the aforesaid extract of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 4.9.1999 shows that it has been passed on the basis of the material mentioned therein. There is no independent finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The aforesaid order also cannot be said to be a speaking order. It does not set out any particulars of the material on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority has arrived at the final conclusion. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation against the enquiry report which is attached with the writ petition at Annexure P -11. A perusal of the impugned order, however, shows that the same has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The order also shows that the report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the U.P.S.C. for consideration. In its letter dated 17.3.1999, the U.P.S.C. has concluded that all the charges framed against the petitioner are fully proved. The U.P.S.C. has even advised imposition of a penalty of compulsory retirement. In our view, the order is liable to be set aside as it is not a speaking order. Moreover, the advice rendered by the U.P.S.C. could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent against it. In this view of Ours, we are fortified by two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others , their Lordships observed that "the desirability of writing a self -contained speaking order in disciplinary proceeding culminating in an order of removal of the delinquent from service, cannot be over -emphasised." In the case of State Bank of India and others v. D.C. Ag -garwal and another , the Supreme Court was considering a case where the compulsory retirement had passed the order of punishment on the basis of the enquiry report and the advice rendered by the Central Vigilance Commission without putting the said advice to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority passed an elaborate order recording finding against the respondent, and coincidentally, agreeing on each charge on which C.V.C. had found against him but disagreeing on quantum of punishment. In that case, the relevant part of the impugned order was as follows : -"While the wrongful acts indulged in by the official are no doubt grave, the facts brought out during the enquiry do not show that Bank sustained any monetary loss thereby. There is also no conclusive proof that the official in all the transactions for procurement of steel, fans, etc. had misappropriated bank's funds or obtained pecuniary gains for himself. Considering the totality of the circumstances, therefore, in my opinion the imposition of the extreme penalty of cessation of service as advised by the Central Vigilance Commission would be too harsh." 4. The departmental appeal against this order was dismissed. The impugned order was quashed by the learned single Judge of this court on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. It was found that the report of the C.V.C. having not been supplied to the officer, it could not form basis for the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned single Judge in D.C. Aggarwal v. State Bank of India and others, 1991(2) SCT 430 (P&H) :, 1991(3) RSJ 233, observed as follows : -"The Disciplinary Authority could not deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the principle of audi alteram partem. The respondent did not deny that the Disciplinary Authority/respondent No. 3 took into account the comments and opinion of Central Vigilance Commission before differing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Any material that is employed against a delinquent official to his prejudice has to be brought to his notice so that he may have his own say this regard. It is possible that the Central Vigilance Commission might have given its own reasons and expressed wrong opinion against the petitioner. It is equally possible that some other record might have been made available to the Central Vigilance Commission in the form of earlier confidential record of the employee concerned. The opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission would obviously carry great weight with the Disciplinary Authority in reaching a final conclusion. But, at any rate, the possibility of such an inference cannot be negatived. The petitioner's complaint that the Disciplinary Authority took the report of the Central Vigilance Commission into consideration without affording an opportunity to him to have benefit of what was stated by the Central Vigilance Commission and resultantly he was deprived of the benefit of the principle of audi al -teram partem, has substance. 5. The Letters Patent Appeal against the order was dismissed. Although the correctness of the order passed by the High Court was assailed on various aspects, including the power of the High Court to interfere on quantum of punishment, the Supreme Court confined consideration only to the question of effect of non -supply of C.V.C. recommendations. The Supreme Court observed as follows : - 4.....Law on natural justice is so well settled from series of decisions of this Court that it leaves one Bewildered, at times, that such bodies like State Bank of India, who are assisted by hierarchy of law officers, commit such basic and fundamental procedural errors that courts are left with no option except to set aside such orders. Imposition of punishment to an employee, on material which is not only not supplied but not disclosed to him, has not been countenanced by this Court. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself 5.....Taking action against an employee on confidential document which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him the High Court, in our opinion, did not commit any error in quashing the order." 6. In the present case, the advice rendered by the U.P.S.C. was not put to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not given even a single finding of its own. The order prima facie, appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in D.C. Ag -garwal's case (supra). 7. For the aforesaid reasons, it would not be possible to uphold the impugned order, the same is hereby quashed. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the entire matter and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, which would flow from the quashing of the impugned order. 9. Petition allowed.;