- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15 October 2015. The learned Single Judge accepted the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy of a departmental appeal and declined to entertain the writ petition while granting liberty to the appellant to pursue the departmental remedy.
(2.) As the impugned order of the learned Single Judge indicates, the basic grievance of the appellant was that though he had not filed any reply to the charge sheet, the Inquiry Officer has held all the charges proved without recording any finding on the charges. Hence, it has been submitted that where an order has been passed patently in violation of the principles of natural justice and there being no independent reasoning on any item of charge, the appropriate course of action would have been to remit the proceedings before the disciplinary authority directing him to complete the enquiry from the stage at which violation of the principles of natural justice had occurred.
(3.) The appellant was working as Consolidator in the consolidation department. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant on charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 18 May 2015. There were as many as 72 charges against the appellant which were held to be established. A reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer indicates that on every charge, the Inquiry Officer proceeded on the basis that the appellant had not furnished any reply to the charge sheet and hence, the charges would stand admitted.;