- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for State and perused the pleadings of writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for State submitted that the claim petition of petitioner has been allowed only on the ground that he was not given opportunity to cross -examine witnesses and of personal hearing even though he had been served with charges for major penalty. Further the Tribunal should have given the opportunity to State to hold a fresh inquiry from the stage it became defective. On a careful consideration of submissions of learned State Counsel, we find that the charges levelled against the respondent, if found proved in the inquiry, would have led to imposing major penalty. Despite charges being such as to give a reasonable apprehension in the mind of respondent that on being found proved he would be visited with major penalty, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report without holding inquiry and the Disciplinary Authority while holding him guilty awarded a minor penalty. To that extent the Tribunal is correct in holding that the inquiry was rendered invalid. It was obligatory for the Inquiry Officer to have held a regular inquiry and given opportunity to the respondent for cross -examining the witnesses and adducing his defence. From the inquiry report the Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer did not at all fixed any date, time or place under information to the respondent for his personal hearing, for cross -examining the witnesses and for adducing evidence. Thus, the Tribunal held that it was almost an admitted fact that after receiving reply of the respondent against the charge -sheet he was not given any opportunity for rebutting proposed evidences and for adducing his evidence.
(3.) NOW , coming to the second limb of the submissions that the Tribunal should have given opportunity to restart the inquiry from the stage it had become defective, we find considerable force in the argument. If the charges were serious and the State was in position to hold inquiry on the basis of proposed evidence, then the respondent should not have been allowed to go scot -free. Thus, we modify the impugned judgment to the extent that the petitioner State would be at liberty to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage it was found to be defective i.e. after the stage of submission of reply by the respondent to the charge -sheet served upon him. We also direct that the inquiry so restarted under this order shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receiving a copy of this order and the private respondent shall be given proper opportunity as permissible under the law.;