D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In a domestic inquiry, after Inflicting punishment of dismissal from service, the amount of loss as was found to have been suffered by the society, was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. This inflictment of punishment and decision for recovery of the loss from him has been challenged in this writ petition on various grounds.
(2.) Sri L. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not submit his reply or explanation on account of non-supply of certain documents, which he has been consistently asking for furnishing of the copies. The petitioner was not allowed inspection thereof. The respondents did not give him suspension allowance which reflects mata fide on their part and as such inquiry proceeding appears to be biased. He then contends that despite appearance of the petitioner the inquiry had proceeded ex-parte without affording any opportunity to him either to submit his explanation or to contest the inquiry. He further contends that in the impugned order they had referred to another report dated 6.12.1990, no copy whereof has been served on the petitioner, and therefore, the proceeding is hit by the principles laid down in the ratio decided in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, JT 1990 (4) SC 456. The punishment could not have been inflicted without giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner. His further contention was that two punishments have been inflicted which is wholly beyond jurisdiction and not permissible under law and is otherwise forbidden by virtue of Regulation 84 of the Regulations. On this ground he contends that the order of punishment should be quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated with full salary.
(3.) Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the question that has been raised by the petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, as has been disputed in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot enter into disputed questions of fact, which can only be decided through evidence. Admittedly, according to him the petitioner did no submit any reply or explanation. He never contested the Inquiry nor he has participated in the inquiry. The petitioner had been asking for some documents which were in the custody of the petitioner who did not hand over charge inspite of several reminders Issued to him.;