ORDER

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent.

2. On a set of certain levelled charges through a Charge Memo dated 05.07.2019 framed under Clause 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) by-laws, the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Engineer, was subjected to an inquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved through a report dated 14.10.2019. The further explanation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2019 was considered by the Disciplinary Authority/first respondent herein and was rejected through the order dated 10.11.2020, by imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The appeal and the further review against the punishment, were rejected. The order of punishment and the subsequent confirmation orders are under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the Appellate and Review Authorities, are non-speaking orders and therefore, they are unsustainable.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2/Corporation, would submit that the Disciplinary Authority has considered all further explanations given by the petitioner on the Inquiry Report and in view of the same, it cannot be termed to be a non-speaking order.

5. A perusal of the original order of punishment dated 10.11.2020, would reveal that though the order runs to about 11 pages, the findings are in penultimate paragraph of the order, which only states that the petitioner's further explanation and the report of the Inquiry Officer were 'duly considered and rejected'. Clause 9(2) and (3) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) by-laws, read as follows:-

“ 9. Procedure for imposing penalties:

(1) .....

(2) In every case, where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service, any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (viii),(ix), (x) and (xi) of by-law 5, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances on which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. The person so charged shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person or both. An oral inquiry shall be held if such inquiry is desired by the person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. At the inquiry, oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to all a witness. After the inquiry has been completed, the person charged shall be entitled to put in, if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence. If no inquiry is held and if he has desires to be heard in person, a personal hearing shall be given to him. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the ground thereof.

(3) After the expiry of personal hearing referred to in clause (2) has been completed, the authority competent to impose the penalty specified in that clause is of the opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, that any of the penalties specified in by-law 5 should be imposed on the person charged, it shall, before making an order imposing such penalty, furnish to him a copy