State Of Punjab v. Satish Kumar Thaman
!" HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
!
"""
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI,
#
$
% &'()&''* +
+ !
-(.&''- +
!
+ + !
+
&-(*&''. /+
% +
%
0 /
1 !
% ! -(.&''-+ +
+ $ + $
2
$
+
$
$
!
+
- /
!
!% #
!"#$ + +
$3 +$
2
) /
$ + $ ! +$
++$ + $ !
! $
$$ % +
+
!
,
* /
! + ! $ !
$
$ # 2 3 $ 2 $
!
$
+ + + $ % +
+ $
+
/+
% + $
. #
$ $ 4 5$ ! +
% +
+
%
$
$
$
+
# $
$
%
& ' 5 $6-)
*
! " #
$!% !
#
!
$
"
# $& ' !
(
$
) ) )
' &
*
"
# $
# # &
)
" )"!
+,- )
% !&
"
.
)! #
!
# /
# $&
,
#
) ) )
' 00 7 5
2
!
+ $3 +
+$
+ $
+
% +
!
1 5
% +
!% #
%
& '
' 8 $ !
$ !
$
!
$
+
2 !
* $ # 2 3 + $
$
+ ! $
2
$ $
+ ! 5 + %1 9
% ('!)"#*$+ #'#'$ ,-.
/ , '0& 122 $6&&
'Turning now to the impugned order itself and the challenge to it on the ground that it was not a speaking order, the law is well seled as held by the Full Bench of this Court in e State of Haryana and others v. Shri Ramchander, 1976(2) SLR 690 that where the disciplinary authority agrees with the -ndings of the Enquiry O1cer, it cannot be said as a maer of law that the disciplinary authority bound to record reasons in every case. is is thus, no ground to aribute invalidity to the impugned order.' &( : $ + !
+
% + ,
+
+ && : $ +
% +
+
%
$ &0 6$ ! &- 5
! !
! ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )