Kuldip Singh, J.@mdashhe judgment dated 1.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 2138 of 2008 has been assailed in the appeal whereby order dated 25.3.1992 passed by Chairman of the appellant, imposing penalty of removal from service of the respondent has been quashed. The facts in brief are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent on 4.6.1987. The inquiry was conducted and Inquiry Officer submitted his report to Disciplinary Authority, a copy of inquiry report was sent to respondent on 13.2.1992. The respondent filed reply to the inquiry report and Disciplinary Authority on 25.3.1992 had imposed major penalty of removal from service of the respondent. The reply filed by respondent against the inquiry report was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal filed by respondent was not decided by the Appellate Authority. The order imposing penalty upon the respondent was wrong, illegal and was the result of non-consideration of reply of the respondent.
2. The appellant contested the petition. It was contended that inquiry was conducted in accordance with rules. The respondent was heard and thereupon order of removal from the service was passed. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the appellant in imposing penalty. The appellant has supported the order of imposing penalty.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Hon''ble Single Judge has relied
4. In the present case, it is admitted position that respondent has filed reply to the inquiry report. In the punishment order dated 25.3.1992, the disciplinary authority has not referred to the reply of respondent nor evidence has been considered. The punishment order does not reveal application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority was required to consider the reply of respondent and such consideration should emerge from the punishment order but punishment order is completely silent regarding the reply of respondent and the contentions raised by him in the reply. The Hon''ble Single Judge has rightly concluded that punishment order dated 25.3.1992 is not sustainable.
5. In the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that in compliance to the order of Hon''ble Single Judge, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order on 16.10.2009 and reiterated the earlier order dated 25.3.2009 (sic 25.3.1992). The respondent had filed the appeal against that order; the Board of Directors had accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the same afresh. The order dated 16.10.2009 has been placed on record in COPC No. 29 of 2010 but even this order has been set aside by the Appellate Authority as stated in grounds of the appeal.
6. At the time of hearing of appeal learned counsel for appellant has shown us copy of order dated 24.8.2010 passed by Disciplinary Authority vide which Disciplinary Authority has again reiterated the order dated 25.3.1992 imposing penalty of removal from service of respondent. It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that order dated 24.8.2010 has not been assailed in appeal by respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of subsequent development respondent is not entitled to pecuniary benefits other then benefits already given to him in the order dated 24.8.2010. The respondent has accepted the order dated 24.8.2010 imposing penalty of removal of service and decling him pecuniary benefit for the period 26.3.1992 to 6.5.2009. The appellant has already paid the respondent for the period 7.5.2009 to 15.10.2009.
7. We have gone through the order dated 24.8.2010. As per order dated 24.8.2010 the respondent has been paid for the period 7.5.2009 to 15.10.2009. He has been declined past benefits for the period 26.3.1992 to 6.5.2009. The respondent has accepted the order dated 24.8.2010 as he has not assailed said order in appeal or otherwise. The order dated 24.8.2010 is silent about the payment for the period 16.10.2009 to 24.8.2010. The respondent is entitled to salary for the period of 16.10.2009 to 24.8.2010. In view of above, since respondent has accepted the order dated 24.8.2010 removing him from service as he has not assailed that order by way of appeal or otherwise, therefore, we dispose of the appeal by holding that respondent is entitled to salary for the period 16.10.2009 to 24.8.2010 only and no other relief.
