B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) The appellant/original petitioner was removed from service by the impugned order dated May 4, 1988 which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority by its order dated September 6, 1989. The said orders were challenged by him before the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4016/1989. This writ petition was dismissed on September 10, 1999.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mridul appearing for the appellant raised the following contentions: (1) The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority is totally a non-speaking order. (2) The appellate order is also a non-speaking order. (3) The respondents had appointed one retired judicial officer as an enquiry officer against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry but the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer was not granted. Out of these three contentions, the third contenti on was not raised at all before the learned single Judge, therefore, there is no finding recorded by the learned single Judge on that. It may be stated that against the impugned order of removal, when the petitioner had filed departmental appeal, this contention regarding the appointment of judicial officer as an enquiry officer was never raised. It was raised for the first time in review. It may also be stated that before the learned single Judge, a totally different argument was raised to the effect that the enquiry officer, who was a retired judicial officer, hurriedly submitted his report. There is a difference between the enquiry report being submitted expeditiously by the enquiry officer and about his competence and denying an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in the enquiry through his lawyer. Thus, the third contention which was sought to be raised by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mridul for the first time in this special appeal cannot be permitted.
(3.) Now we come to the first contention regarding the impugned order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority is a non-speaking order. From the impugned order, prima facie it appears that it is a non-speaking order but from Annexure R/5 produced along with the reply affidavit, it is clear that it was a speaking order as while passing the impugned order, the authority separately recorded the reasons. However, an attempt was made by the learned counsel Mr. Mridul that certain contentions raised by the petitioner in his written arguments were not dealt with in detail. If the authority is satisfied with the evidence on record that otherwise the charges are proved, then it is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to give its finding on each and every argument raised by the delinquent.;