By the Court.—Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajal Krishna for the petitioner.

2. The only submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Rule 9(4) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “1999 Rules”) provides that after recording its own reasoned finding on the charges on disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority shall furnish a copy of the inquiry report alongwith its findings to the delinquent employee, requiring him to submit his reply and after receiving the reply, if any, shall pass a reasoned order imposing punishment, if any. He submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order of punishment dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that ex facie it is unreasoned and non-speaking order and, therefore, is in breach of Rule 9(2) and (4) of 1999 Rules.

3. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submitted that the order dated 9.6.2004 must be read along with the reasons communicated to the delinquent employee alongwith show cause notice which would be deemed to be a part and parcel of the punishment order and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any non-compliance of Rule 9(4).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Rule 9 of 1999 Rules provides for action on inquiry report and reads as under :

“9. Action on Inquiry Report.—The Disciplinary Authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the Disciplinary Authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7.

(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own finding thereon for reasons to be recorded.

(3) In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated the Disciplinary Authority of the charges and inform him accordingly.

(4) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The Disciplinary Authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.”

6. In the case in hand, the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of various charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings particularly in respect to charges No.1, 3 and 4, and, after recording reasons for disagreement communicated the same to the delinquent employee along with the inquiry report vide letter dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure 21 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 5.8.2003 a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 22 to the writ petition. It is thereafter that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order. The question for consideration is whether the order of punishment satisfies the requirement of Rule 9(4) of 1999 Rules.

7. Rule 9, sub-rule (2) clearly provides that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, it shall record its own finding thereto with the reasons. Sub-rule (4) further requires that if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the Government servant deserves imposition of some penalty unde