O.P. Garg, J. - (1.) While working as Senior Assistant in Terminal Office. Marketing Division of Indian Oil Corporation, at Allahabad, the petitioner Khan Asif Abdulla (P. F, 18654) claimed reimbursement of his expenses to the tune of Rs. 60.846, on the basis of forged bills on Form P. A. 21, and thereby committed alleged acts of fraud, forgery and dishonesty in connection with the Corporation's business, or. property. After preliminary vigilance enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 25.5.1992, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, was served upon him. A committee of enquiry consisting of two members was constituted. Enquiry report was submitted by the Committee on 4.10,1993 holding that the charge against the petitioner stands proved. The disciplinary authority, namely, Deputy General Manager (O) issued a notice dated 20.10.1993 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice on 26.11.1993, which is contained in Annexure-28 to the writ petition, and further submitted additional reply on 18.2.1994. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 16.5.1994, Annexure-29 to the writ petition, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Executive Director, Northern Region. New Delhi. The appeal was dismissed on 4.10.1994 (Annexure-31 to the petition). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition under Rule 12.9.1 of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which authorises the Chairman of the Corporation or any officer not below the rank of Head of Department to revise any order passed by the authority subordinate to him or to reconsider an earlier order passed on an appeal by him or his predecessor if on a subsequent date a fresh light is thrown in the case. By order dated 23.2.1995, Annexure-33 to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid Rule 12.9.1 does not apply to him. It appears that no orders on the review petition were passed but subsequently, on 22.8.1995, the review petition was rejected, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-l to the affidavit filed with the amendment application. The result is that the petitioner stands finally dismissed from service.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by the Committee of Enquiry ; certain inferences drawn by them, and has asserted that he was denied the opportunity of examining the witnesses in defence and consequently the report of enquiry is bad in law and has to be set aside. It is also urged that the disciplinary authority/appellate authority/Chairman, (who is empowered to review orders of his subordinates), have not applied their mind judiciously to the matter and have passed cryptic orders in a most cursory, casual and perfunctory manner.
(3.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri V. K. Shukla. learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R. G. Padia, on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation as well as other respondents. Dr. Padia repelled the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner.;