The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary enquiry proceedings must be conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, including affording sufficient opportunity for representation and considering the objections raised by the delinquent official.

( 1 ) SUPERINTENDENT (Personnel) was the post held by the petitioner at the time of dismissal from service by respondents-1 and 2. Aggrieved by this unjustified action of respondents, petitioner is before this Court. The short question involved in this petition is whether the disciplinary enquiry proceedings held by respondents is in accordance with principles of natural justice and whether the severe punishment imposed by the employer is in commensuration with the gravity of charges alleged against the delinquent official.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few background facts.

( 3 ) PETITIONER was appointed by respondent 1 on 2-11-1978 as superintendent (Personnel) and posted to Bangalore Dairy, bangalore. Some time in the month of October, 1981, he was transferred to Mysore Dairy Complex, Mysore. There, he was served with a memo dated 8-7-1985 by the General Manager of respondent 2, inter alia directing the petitioner to offer his explanation within the prescribed time. The memo reads as under :"memo mrs. M. Devajammanni, a casual employee of our establishment has submitted a letter to the Home Minister of Karnataka and endorsed a copy to me. A copy of the said endorsement is enclosed herewith. You are hereby called upon to submit your explanation and remarks to the undersigned on or before 10-7-1985 for the purpose of taking necessary steps in this regard. Sd/-"

( 4 ) AT this stage, it is very relevant to state that the complaint of Smt. Devajammanni was only with regard to the delay in forwarding the claim papers for settlement of provident fund to the Provident Fund Commissioner. The delinquent official by his reply dated 8-7-1985, refuted the allegations made in the memo issued by General Manager of respondent 1. As a sequel to the memo and the reply, General Manager telegraphically informed the petitioner to hand over all the files pertaining to his department. This was sometime during the month of August, 1985. Pursuant to this telegram received, petitioner handed-over all the files to one Sri Shanthi Gowda, Office Superintendent on 24-8-1985. Even on this day, petitioner did not foresee the drastic future consequence to come in his service carrier. It is apropos for me to give an indication that what else transpired on that fateful day, by referring to the evidence of the management witness Smt. Shakuntala (M. W-1) before the Enquiry Officer. A bare reading of the statement of that lady gives an impression that the whole episode was stage managed, keeping in view the possible action contemplated against the delinquent official. In her evidence, she would state that she was asked to do despatching work on that day by Office Superintendent as one kannan who was a regular despatching clerk was on leave. The stage show would commence at 3. 30 p. m. when Superintendent (Personnel) would call the lady to come to his chambers with despatch register. Once she was in, it was stated that the petitioner directed her to make certain entries on 21-8-1985, as if certain letters had been despatched on that day. To cover this commission, she states that changes had to be done in the stamp accounts also. Obligingly she has done all this because petitioner was her superior officer. After narrating the lines in the first part of the episode, she states that around 4. 15 p. m. , one Sri rajgopal, Labour Welfare Officer meets her in the canteen and enquiries whether anyone had made entries in the despatch register and immediately thereafter, she was asked to go over to general Manager's chambers by office Superintendent with despatch register. In the General Manager's chambers, one Sri narendra, Advocate was also present, who has filed objections to the writ petition for and on behalf of respondents-1 and 2. In his presence, it is said that she was asked to give her statement in writing which is produced as Exhibit M-9 before the Enquiry officer. Before