CWP (T) No.14143 of 2008. 19.11.2009. Present: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate, vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memo dated 20th August, 2002. Shri R.M. Singh, Principal, ITI, Una was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 1.11.2002. The Inquiry Officer gave the opinion that complete charge framed against the petitioner was not established and only a part thereof has been established i.e. preparation of Bill No.18 dated 25.3.1998 amounting to Rs.3618/- without confirming the receipt of material and its stock entry. He was supplied with the copy of the inquiry report by the Director vide memo i.e. Annexure P-3. He filed the reply to the same on 7.11.2003. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect on 14.6.2005. He preferred an appeal against the same to the Secretary, Technical Education on 10.8.2005. The same was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 8.9.2006. Mr. Kaundal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that imposition of penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is against law. He then contended that the Appellate order is not reasoned. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been offered reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of disciplinary proceedings and he was also heard by the Disciplinary Authority before the imposition of penalty as well as by the Appellate Authority. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Rules against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer after examining PWs 1 and 2 and other documents came to a definite opinion that preparation of Bill No.18 dated 25.3.1998 was without confirming the receipt of material and its stock entry. He was permitted to file representation against the inquiry report. He filed reply to the same and his defence was that he prepared the Bill at the instance of the Principal through the then Superintendent. The Disciplinary Authority after hearing him has imposed the penalty. He has preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority has heard him. We have gone through the appellate order dated 8th September, 2006. The appellate order is a speaking order. The contention made by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Mr. Kaundal has failed to point out any infraction of mandatory provision of law while disciplinary proceedings were held against him. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioner was heard at every stage. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner. He has been heard by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority at every stage. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (R.B. Misra), ACJ. 19th November, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)