JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Instant writ petition arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 3rd August, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 3253/98.
3. The services of the petitioner were terminated by order dt. 16.6.1987 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appeal against which has been dismissed on 5.8.1988.
4. Learned Single Judge upheld the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, who was not an Enquiry Officer, was not speaking order and therefore the matter must be heard and decided by the Disciplinary Authority once again. However, while coming to this conclusion and directing the Disciplinary Authority to make orders denovo the learned Single Judge went on to observe about the fairness of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer. Fairness of the Enquiry Officer itself is a subject matter of objection taken by the petitioner against the final order which he wants to canvass before the Disciplinary Authority. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner if the observation made by learned Single Judge and other directions about the orders that may be made by disciplinary authority are allowed to stand, the direction given by this Court to the Disciplinary Authority about the deciding that the objections raised by the appellant would be redundant exercise. The freedom of disciplinary authority in reaching his own conclusions after hearing the petitioner and make appropriate orders in accordance with his own decision and discretion shall be illusive so also opportunity given to the petitioner to canvass validity of his objections and defences.
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified. Under the circumstances the order under appeal needs to be modified to the extent that the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority is set aside on the ground that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a speaking order and he is directed to make orders afresh in accordance with law. He is further directed to given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before making such order, on considering enquiry reports submitted to him. It shall be open for the petitioner to raise all the grounds available to him before the Disciplinary Authorities for the purpose of reaching just and fair conclusion. In coming to his conclusion the Disciplinary Authority shall not be influenced in any manner by the observations made by learned Single Judge in this regard which are related to pre-hearing stage of the enquiry.
6. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when as a result of setting aside of the penalty order the appellant is reinstated, he is entitled as a matter of course to back wages and it should not be left to the Disciplinary Authority to decide his entitlement of back wages for the period for which he has not discharged his duties. We are unable to accede to this contention. This matter relates to imposition of punishment and order has been set aside on account of procedural flaw.
7. We are of the opinion that learned Single Judge was justified to leave the matter of back wages for the period for which the petitioner has not discharged his duties to the Disciplinary Authority depending on the outcome of the Disciplinary proceedings.
8. The disciplinary proceedings shall be completed by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of three months from the date of service of this order.
9. This appeal accordingly stands disposed of.