- (1.) HEARD Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Pande, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 9.2.2007 and the enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 has filed the instant writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while posted at NOIDA as Regional Officer/Environmental Engineer was placed under suspension by the order dated 17.2.2006. The Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the order dated 22.3.2006. A charge-sheet dated 9.6.2006 containing 12 charges was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27.6.2006. The petitioner was required to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 20.11.2006 at Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that no effort was made by the Department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by leading any evidence and on the basis of the High Power Committee recommendation an enquiry report dated 15.1.2007 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the impugned punishment order dated 9.2.2007 was passed, which is legally not sustainable. He further submits that the impugned punishment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and others v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC42.;