- (1.)The petitioner has questioned the order dated 22-1-2001 passed by the respondents. Interms of this order the punishment of with holding three increments having the effect of postponing his future increments, was imposed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has questioned this order essentially on the ground that the copy of the inquiry report was not given to him before imposing the aforementioned punishment. He states that the Inquiry Officer had concluded the inquiry proceedings and forwarded the same to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner was entitled to be served with inquiry report so that he could make effective representation against the proposed punishment.
(2.)In order to understand this controversy some brief facts are required to be given as follows.
(3.)The petitioner was appointed in the Planning Department and was sent on transfer under Rule 27 of Classification, Control & Appeal Rule of 1956, to the Education Department. During his tenure in the Education Department, some irregularities are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He was placed under suspension by the Education Department. The said suspension order was challenged in the writ petition filed in this Court. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Education Department was not the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, as his parent Department was Planning Department. The order of suspension was quashed. It is further averred that after quashing the suspension order, respondent No. 2 framed charges and referred the matter for inquiry to the Commissioner of Inquiry.