- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.3.2000 issued by the respondents awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, debarring from promotion for one year and also withholding payment of salary other than subsistence allowance. The petitioner while posted as Operator in the Patratu Thermal Power Station was put under suspension in the year 1995 for certain omission and commission in the discharge of his duties. A charge -sheet was issued and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and other employees in terms of the certified standing order. The Superintending Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after considering the entire facts of the case and the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others have not been established. However the disciplinary authority disagreed and differed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and directed the petitioner to file a show cause as to why the punishment proposed in the said notice be not inflicted on him. On receipt of the notice dated 6.2.1999 the petitioner submitted his cause justifying the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the charges leveled against him was without any basis. After considering the show cause the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority while issuing notice calling the petitioner to show cause has not specially and categorically stated the reasons of his disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority while disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer must give reasons of his disagreement. Since the mandatory requirement has not been complied with, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel. From perusal of the notice as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ application it appears that the disciplinary authority instead of recording specific reasons of disagreement simply stated that after considering the charge - sheet, written statement, deposition and report of the Inquiry Officer, it has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner did not take charge of the Boiler and also did not report to his superiors regarding abnormal boiler condition. The disciplinary authority has not mentioned as to which evidence recorded or brought on record which has either been ignored by the Inquiry Officer or has not been given proper weightage to that evidence.;