CWP (T) No. 6295 of 2008 20.7. 2010 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional A.G. with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional A.G. for the respondents. CWP (T) No. 6295 of 2008 The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 17.3.1998(Annexure P-5), vide which the pay of the petitioner by way of penalty has been reduced from Rs.6,400/- to Rs.6,000/- in the pay scale of Rs.5800-9200 with the stipulation that the petitioner shall not earn any increments in the next three years and would not earn any increments for the above period in future also. The petitioner has also assailed office Memo dated 16.3.1999(Annexure A-7), vide which he was informed that his appeal has been rejected. The further relevant facts are that vide Memo dated 6.3.1996, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and after enquiry, vide office order dated 17.3.1998(Annexure A-5) his pay was reduced, as noticed above, by way of penalty. The petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed and the petitioner was informed accordingly vide office Memo dated 16.3.1999(Annexure A-7). It has been submitted that order dated 17.3.1998(Annexure A-5) is not a speaking order inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has not considered the relevant material on records. The disciplinary authority in the impugned order has given reference of enquiry report only. The office Memo dated 16.3.1999 is also not on better footing. No reasons have been given in office Memo dated 16.3.1999 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. It is a common case of the parties that evidence was led during the enquiry. A perusal of office order dated 17.3.1998 indicates that the disciplinary authority has not considered the evidence, which has come on record while imposing penalty. The disciplinary authority has only considered the enquiry report at the time of imposing penalty. The non-consideration of the evidence by the disciplinary authority while imposing penalty in itself is sufficient to set aside the order dated 17.3.1998. The appellate authority has also not considered the evidence while dismissing the application. In these circumstances, office order dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure A-5) and office Memo dated 16.3.1999(Annexure A-7) are quashed. The disciplinary authority shall re-consider the matter and pass speaking order, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed. July 20, 2010. (Kuldip Singh)) (vt) Judge