- (1.) THE petitioner of this writ petition, who before the order of dismissal was passed against him, was working as Accounts Officer in the U. P. Hill Electronics Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as the' Corporation' ). On 3-10-2000 he was charge-sheeted for committing alleged financial irregularities on 28-11-2000, the petitioner submitted his reply against the charge-sheet and on December 6, 2000 he was dismissed from service.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the order of dismissal the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing the present writ petition mainly on the following grounds: (a) The enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry and no witnesses were examined. (b) No date for hearing was fixed and after submission of the explanation of the petitioner the dismissal order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause against the said order. The basis of proof of the charges contained in the charge-sheet is specially the audit report which is only an opinion of the Auditor and can not be taken to be a substantive piece of evidence unless the same is proved by an officer. The order of punishment suffers from colourable exercise of powers inasmuch as at the behest of the petitioner the Managing Director of the said Corporation who is also Secretary of the Government was summoned by the High Court in the contempt proceedings.
(3.) WE have also summoned the record of the enquiry proceedings and perused the same. The record does not indicate that after the petitioner submitted his reply on 28-11-2000, the Managing Director who himself assumed the role of an Enquiry officer, examined any witness or held any enquiry or fixed any date for hearing. The Enquiry Officer straightaway passed the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Undoubtedly the charges levelled against the petitioner were very grave. Whenever such charges are levelled against a delinquent the responsibility of the Enquiry Officer is much greater. The enquiry should be conducted in a manner where the charges are proved in accordance with law. It is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to give reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and produce the evidence.;