- (1.) PETITIONERS have questioned the validity of the order dated 19th of December, 2002 passed by the Respondent No.3 in respect to petitioners and 25 others.
(2.) 2006(1) JLJR 348]. While allowing this writ petition following order was passed: - "5. It is, therefore, clear that even before giving show -cause notice calling for explanation, the punishment of withholding five increments was recommended by the Committee and in compliance of the aforesaid recommendation a formality was done by calling for explanation from the petitioners. No fullfledged inquiry much less a departmental inquiry was conducted before passing such an order of punishment. I, therefore, without going into the other' questions with regard to competency of respondent No. 3 to issue impugned order, hold that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, this order will not come in the way of the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law before imposing any punishment upon the petitioners." Since the order impugned has already been quashed in the earlier judgment, the direction contained, therein, shall govern the case of the petitioners also. 2006(1) JLJR 348].;