JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner has raised three issues in this writ petition namely, petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 22.04.2009, Annexure P-1, which was admittedly received by him on 06.06.2009 but he filed reply on 15.01.2010.

2. It is submitted that though reply was submitted on 15.01.2010 it was not considered and impugned order dated 03.03.2010 was passed.

3. Issue which is raised is that whether authorities are required to consider a reply even filed belatedly after more than seven months of receiving the show cause notice or not ?

4. Second issue which has been raised is that as per the provisions contained in Rule 16(1)(e) whether consultation with the Public Service Commission while imposing minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was mandatory or not ?

5. Third issue which is ancillary is that the disciplinary authority himself had recommended to the appellate authority to convert punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect to that of censure. Thus whether the recommendation of the disciplinary authority to the appellate authority is binding or not ?

6. Another subsidiary issue is whether proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not ?

7. It is evident from the impugned order, Annexure P- 3 that petitioner was not furnishing acknowledgment of the receipt of the show cause notice dated 22/04/2009 till 23/09/2009 which was received from him on 04.01.2010 as was forwarded by the Conservator of Forest. In Annexure-P/3 it is mentioned as under :

**mDr i= Jh f}onh] lgk;d ou lj{kd }kjk fnukd 23-9-09 dkse[; ou lj{kd jhok ds ek/;e ls izkIr fd;k x;k] bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh i= es Li"V mYys[k Fkk fd os cpko mRrj i= ikorh ls 15 fnol dh vof/k ea fuf'pr #i ls izLrr djs] fdUrq mudk cpko mRrj vkfnukd rd bl dk;kZy; ea izkIr ugha gvk vkj u gh cpko mRrj izLrr djus ds iz;kstu ls lqlxr vfHkys[k voyksdu djus ds lc/k eas dkbZ vkosnu izkIr gvkA

4- izdj.k ea eq[; ou lj{kd vul/kku foLrkj oRr jhok }kjk muds i= Øekd@vu-fo-@fo-tk-@21 fnukd 4-1-2010 ls Jh f}onh }kjk izkIr fd;s x;s mDr i= dh ikorh izsf"kr dh x;h gSA eq[; ou lj{kd vul/kku foLrkj oRr jhok ds i= ds lkFk izkIr lgi=ka ds voyksdu ls Li"V gkrk gS fd Jh f}onh dks i= dh ikorh Hktus grq oueMy vf/kdkjh flxjkyh }kjk muds i= fnukd 6-6-09 ls ys[k fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq ikorh u Hkstus ij e[; ou lj{kd jhok }kjk iqu% Lej.k djk;s tkus ij eq[; ou lj{kd jhok ds i= ij gh Jh f}onh }kjk ikorh nh x;h gA izdj.k eaJh f}onh }kjk ikorh nh x;h gSA izdj.k esa Jh f}onh dk cpko mRrj vizkIr gksuk rFkk muls dkbZ i=kpkj izkIr u gkus ls ;g ekudj fd Jh f}onh dks vius cpko es adN ugha dguk gS rFkk mudks yxk;k x;k vkjksi ekU; gS] muds Åij yxk;s x;s vk{ksi ds lc/k esa mudk mRrjnkf;Ro fu/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

vr% izdj.k ea lex#i ls fopkjksijkUr esa vkns'k nsrk gaS fd %& @@vkns'k@@

Hkksiky] fnukd 3-3-2010

dekd @@100@@ Jh ,e-,e-f}onh] lgk;d ou lj{kd] mi oueMy vf/kdkjh dFkZvk dks e/;izns'k flfoy lsok oxhdj.k] fu;=.k rFkk vihy fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ¼4½ ds varZxr vkxkeh nks osruof);ka vlp;h izHkko ls jkds tkus ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA^^

8. Shri Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised several grounds to assail impugned orders; namely; there is no provision for imposition of punishment on the ground of non-submission of daily diary. It is submitted that impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Rule 10 and Rule 16 of the