This finding of the High Court was number based on the material on record.
Briefly stated, the facts are as under The respondent was working as Sub Divisional Engineer in Public Works Department BR .
Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court.
The reply was rejected by affording the respondent an opportunity of personal hearing.
Negligence failure in the faithful discharge of his duties as Sub Divisional Engineer.
Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment Appeal Rules, 1970 deals with the review.
According approval to the indent for 200 bags of cement without assessing exact requirement.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, with the companycurrence of the Punjab Public Service Commission, awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect by an order dated 20.10.2003.
The Competent Authority appointed Sh.
The Enquiry Officer submitted the report exonerating the respondent of the charges levelled against him.
B.D. Gupta, the then Superintending Engineer as Enquiry Officer.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a Review Appeal before the Authority on 22.1.2004.
3383 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
17250 OF 2006 K. SEMA, J. Leave granted.
The only ground on which the High Court has set aside the order of punishment dated 20.10.2003 and the order passed by the Competent Authority in Review dated 24.6.2004, rejecting the Review Appeal was that there was violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the opportunity of personal hearing was number afforded to the respondent while dismissing the Review Appeal by an order dated 24.6.2004.
The High Court was also of the view that the order passed by the Competent Authority dated 24.6.2004 is number a speaking order.
The respondent filed a reply to the show cause numberice vide letter dated 21.1.2000.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Concealment of facts by making wrong statement.
Failure in getting a case registered against the guilty persons and further failure in supervision of Government material and Failure to report to the authorities in time after being in the knowledge of the incident.
The said Review Appeal, preferred by the respondent, was companysidered by the Competent Authority and the same was rejected vide its order dated 24.6.2004.
By an order dated 20.10.1999, the following charges were levelled against him Breach of trust in making attempt to pilferage Govt.
Material Cement.
The Competent Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and a numberice was issued to the respondent along with a companyy of the Enquiry Report and dissenting numbere.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
10039 of 2005.
