The disciplinary authority must consider the employee's representation and pass reasoned orders, and the appellate authority must consider all grounds raised in appeal and provide reasons for affirming lower authority's order.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner and charge-sheet was served on him on 29th May, 1999. Shri O.P. Sharma was appointed the Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 23rd May, 2000. The copy of inquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner on 1st July, 2000. He filed detailed representation against the same vide Annexure A-8, dated 22nd July, 2000. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect on 11th August, 2000. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against order dated 11th Augut, 2000. The appellate authority substituted the penalty by reducing the penalty of withholding of one increment instead of three increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 15th January, 2001. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are non-speaking orders.

2. The disciplinary authority has supplied copy of the inquiry report to the Petitioner on 1st July, 2000. He filed detailed reply to the same. The reply/representation made by the Petitioner to the inquiry report was required to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority in depth. The purpose of supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent is to enable him to point out deficiencies, flaws and shortcomings in the inquiry. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727, have held as under:

The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity it the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it. or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before