AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) To Set aside and quash the order dated 11.09.2014, Annexure P-10, passed by the appellate authority.
(ii) To set aside and quash the order dated 26.11.2013, Annexure P-8, passed by the disciplinary authority.
(iii) To set aside enquiry report Annexure P-15 with directions to exonerate the petitioner of all charges.”
When this case was listed on 14.09.2020, the following order was passed:
“By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
7(i) “To set aside and quash the order dated 11.9.2014, Annexure P-10, passed by the appellate authority.
(ii) To set aside and quash the order dated 26.11.2013, Annexure P-8, passed by the disciplinary authority.
(iii) To set aside enquiry report Annexure P-5 with directions to exonerate the petitioner of all charges.”
I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of Annexure P-8, i.e., order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Annexure P-10, i.e., order dated 11.09.2014, passed by the Appellate Authority, prima-facie demonstrates that these two orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, being non-speaking and unreasoned orders.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent prays that this case is ordered to be listed on 16.09.2020, to enable him to have appropriate instructions in the matter.
List on 16th September, 2020.”
Today, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that she has instructions to state that this writ petition can be disposed of by setting aside the orders, which have been passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and by remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority with the liberty that said authority may pass order afresh after hearing both the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not averse to what has come forth from the leaned counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Annexure P-8, order dated 26.11.2013, passed by the disciplinary authority as well as Annexure P-10, order dated 11.09.2014, passed by the appellate authority, primarily on the ground that the said orders are non-speaking and unreasoned, by further remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority with the direction that the said authority shall pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the petitioner as well as the Corporation/Department. The order to be passed by the disciplinary authority shall be both reasoned and speaking. Appropriate order be passed by the disciplinary authority within a period of six weeks from today. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner strictly as per facts and law, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Copy dasti.