Das, learned counsel submitted that ‘X’ not being available for undertaking the exercise of Disciplinary Authority, ‘Y’ who has joined as Disciplinary Authority ought to have given a re-thought on the report of the Inquiry Officer in absence of which the final order of Inquiry Authority vitiates. Further, looking to the Disciplinary Authority differing from the view of the Inquiry Officer and a fresh decision since is required to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, Sri Das, learned counsel contended that in the interest of justice, an opportunity of hearing before decision is taken by the subsequent Disciplinary Authority shall also be warranted. To support his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunja Behari Misra, AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 2713 and in the case of Yoginath D.Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3734 . Referring to paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 in the Case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunja Behari Misra (supra) and paragraph-31 in the case of Yoginath D.Bagde (supra) , learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify the applicability of such decisions to the case at hand and subsequently made a prayer for allowing the writ petition and thereby passing appropriate order.
