Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. A common question of law arises for consideration in the three above captioned writ petitions. With one additional point urged in W.P.(C) No.6156/2012 pertaining to the reasons to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority while levying penalty if it agrees with the report of the Inquiry Officer. Lest there be a confusion with reference to the record of this Court we may note at the outset that after arguments were heard on July 11, 2013 and matter was reserved for judgment, the order dated July 11, 2013 wrongly records the writ number in which the additional point was urged. The recording in the order that the additional point was urged in W.P.(C) No.6157/2012 is incorrect. The additional point was urged in W.P.(C) No.6156/2012.

2. The common point in all the three writ petitions pertains to whether advice obtained from UPSC by the Competent Authority before levying penalty was required to be supplied to the charged officer when report of the Inquiry Officer was forwarded to him and not along with the order levying penalty.

3. In a short decision, which incidentally does not note Rule 32 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, decided on January 30, 2004,