VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J - (1.)THIS writ petition is filed by Sh. R.C. Kapur impugning the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority dated 30.9.1985 and 3.1.1990 respectively whereby the petitioner has been inflicted the penalty of removal from service of State Farms Corporation of India Ltd./respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(2.)ON 22.7.1992, at the time of issuing of notice in the present writ petition, notice was restricted to the compliance of Regulation 151(4) of the Staff Regulations of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. What is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that there are two ingredients of Regulation 151(4) which have not been complied with, firstly of evidence having not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and secondly of the Disciplinary Authority not having been independently passed itself an order giving its findings and conclusions.
In order to appreciate the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, Regulation 151 is reproduced in its entirety as under:-

151.(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of regulation 149 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reason for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of regulation 146 should be imposed on the employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 152, make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to(ix) of Regulation 146 should be imposed on the employee, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the employee any opportunity of making representation on the penalty. "proposed to be imposed."

(3.)LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner has referred two grounds (c) and (h) of the writ petition and the contents of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.9.1985 and the Reviewing Authority dated 3.1.1990 to argue that the said orders do not show that the authorities have considered the evidence before passing the impugned orders. Stress is also laid on the Office Memorandum of CVC dated 16.4.1985 to contend that the said Memorandum shows that documents were not with the Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority which passed the orders as the same are said to be with the Department of Food.