17. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the impugned order deals with the narration of the sequence of events culminating in issuance of second show-cause notice and with regard to the detailed reply to second show cause filed by the petitioner, it only mentions that upon examination of the reply filed by the petitioner, allegation of taking bribe by the petitioner has been proved and consequently, the impugned punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had raised a number of points in connection with challenging the reason of the Disciplinary Authority to differ with the enquiry report, but the impugned order has no discussion of the detailed reply filed by the petitioner and the show cause filed by the petitioner has been mechanically rejected by non-speaking order. This Court is of the considered view that in a case where the Enquiry Report is submitted in favour of the delinquent and the Disciplinary Authority chooses to differ with the findings of the enquiry report and the delinquent objects to the reasons cited by the disciplinary authority to differ with the enquiry report, the order rejecting the reply of the delinquent has to be a reasoned order. On account of absence of reasons and mechanical rejection of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner to the 2nd show cause notice, the impugned order dated 07.05.2011, being non-speaking order, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which is accordingly set aside. The second point is answered in favour of the petitioner.
