( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the order, dated 27. 5. 2003, of the 1st respondent dismissing the petitioner from services etc. , as confirmed in the order dated 26. 11. 2003 of the 2nd respondent and order dated 16. 4. 2004 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including backwages.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Foreman in the cantonment Board, Secunderabad, in the year 1972 and since then he has been discharging his duties sincerely. While the matter stood thus, on 28. 11. 2000 the 1st respondent issued Office Order No. 214, dated 28. 11. 2000, placing him under suspension on the ground that payment of some work bills were made excessively and irregularly during the period 1990 to 1997. On 2. 11. 2002 the 1st respondent issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 30. 4. 2003. On 27. 5. 2003 the petitioner submitted his reply. On 26. 11. 2003 the 1st respondent issued a final order dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the said order he preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent in turn passed orders rejecting his statutory appeal with a modification that dismissal order shall be operative with effect from the date of issuance of dismissal order i. e. , 27. 5. 2003. Against the same, the petitioner filed revision before the 3rd respondent and the same was rejected without looking into the facts and law involved in the matter. Aggrieved by the orders of the Respondents 1 to 3, the present writ petition has been filed.

( 3 ) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the writ petition reiterating the facts relating to the loss occurred to the Cantonment Board in respect of purchase of lubricants, engine oil and repairs to the vehicles by the petitioner, about the criminal case filed against the petitioner, CBI investigation, action taken against the petitioner by the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the financial mismanagement or loss of certain amounts of the Cantonment Board for the years 1992-97, a discrete enquiry has been conducted followed by a regular departmental enquiry. The documents relied upon by the respondents have not been furnished to the writ petitioner, which is a mala fide exercise of power and the findings of the Enquiry officer are based upon no evidence, therefore, they are perverse in nature. He also stated that all the findings are based upon acquisitions or observations made by the CBI or from the Special Audit Report and perhaps there is a reason that the enquiry Officer also observed that a separate enquiry might be ordered to make the enquiry more meaningful and hence he prays to allow the writ petition.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned standing Counsel for the respondents contended that since the writ petitioner is working in the administrative control of the cantonment Board, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The writ petitioner did not make any observation with regard to non-supply of the documents, but he has requested to furnish the certified copies of the documents which has been turned down and the delinquent himself admitted the charges and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

( 6 ) THERE are about 44 findings, which have been given by the Enquiry Officer. Out of those findings, finding Nos. 17 and 44 are the extracts of the reports of CBI and relevant points of the Special Audit report. Those two documents have not been furnished to the writ petitioner admittedly.

( 7 ) THE scope of the judicial review, in respect of the departmental proceedings, is very much circumscribed. This Court is not concerned with the adequacy or reliabili

Click Here to Read the rest of this document