AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J
Petitioner, who is appearing in person, argues that the order of punishment (Annexure P-4) is totally non-speaking as it does not give the gist of the
allegations alleged against him and the reply so filed by him controverting those allegations. Petitioner appearing in person submits that even the appeal
filed by him against the imposition of penalty has been rejected by the respondents by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order (Annexure P-8)
whereas, according to law, the order imposing the punishment has to be a speaking order giving the details as to on what account, the objection so
raised qua the allegations by delinquent, are not found suitable.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the
service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly accepts that the order imposing the punishment dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-4) as well as in the
order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-8) are non-speaking orders.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that fresh order on the charge sheet dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) will be passed by the disciplinary
authority by taking into consideration the reply so submitted by the petitioner to the said allegations dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P-3).
Petitioner, who is appearing in person, submits that keeping in view the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents-State, his grievance qua
the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P-4) and the order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-8), stand
redressed and he does not wish to press this writ petition any further.
Disposed of as not pressed.