D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 7.7.1995, contained in Annexure-17, after holding a domestic enquiry as against him on the ground that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. The petitioner had preferred an appeal departmentally which was dismissed by an order dated 19.3.1996, contained in Annexure-20 to the writ petition. These orders have since been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said orders on the ground that while issuing the second show cause notice, copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. On account thereof, he had not been able to reply properly to the second show cause notice. Relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, he contends that non-furnishing of enquiry report along with second show cause notice vitiates the whole enquiry proceeding and the order of punishment passed thereon. He next contends that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner to contest the enquiry. According to him though at the initial stage, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry but due to reasons personal to him, he was unable to participate in the enquiry at a later stage for which the enquiry was held ex parte. Therefore, in the absence of opportunity, the enquiry is vitiated.
(3.) He next contends that on the basis of record it appears that the finding of the enquiry was perverse. Inasmuch as it has not taken into consideration various documents particularly the letter dated 30.7.1993 which was though not produced at the time of enquiry but was mentioned in reply to the second show cause notice. He then contends that even on the basis of the documents and the letters dated 6.7.1993 and 16.8.1993 no reasonable conclusion could be arrived at that the petitioner did not travel from Allahabad to Delhi and from Delhi to Jammu Tawi. On the basis of this document, no such conclusion can be arrived at by any rational person. He next contends that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had applied their mind. Though each of them purported to have passed an order supported by some reason, yet it does not reflect that they had applied their mind properly. Therefore, the orders are to be set aside. In support of his contention he had relied upon various decisions to which reference would be made at appropriate stage.;