The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and legal enquiry in accordance with relevant Regulations, and the court's authority to quash the removal from service while reserving liberty to hold a denova enquiry.

Satyanarayana, J.

1. The respondent – Indian Airlines Limited, in W.P.No.18730/1994 is impugning the order dated 21.09.1998 passed in the said Writ Petition.

2. The facts leading to this Intra Court appeal are as under:

Respondent herein while he was working as Traffic Officer of the appellant alleged to have involved in serious misconduct in respect of which preliminary investigation was conducted by C.B.I., and submitted its report on 30.06.1992. Pursuant to said enquiry, appellant also instituted an enquiry appointing one R. Pushpavanam as enquiry officer, which commenced on 24.04.1993 and concluded on 29.11.1993, after examining 17 witnesses and marking of more than 100 documents on behalf of management, appellant herein. Thereafter, enquiry officer submitted a finding giving reasons for arriving at conclusion holding the respondent is guilty of the charges alleged.

3. Pursuant to the said finding of the enquiry report, show cause notice was issued on the respondent on 16.06.1994 proposing punishment for his removal from service which was challenged by the respondent in W.P.No.18730/1994 which was initially stayed and later by an order dated 14.09.1994 Single Judge of this Court permitted the appellant to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders. However, the appellant was not permitted to give effect to the said order, until further orders to be passed in the said Writ Petition. Subsequently, enquiry was completed and the order was passed for removal of respondent from service by order dated 04.05.1995. On such order being passed, respondent herein, petitioner before Single Judge, made necessary amendment to the Writ Petition filed by him. Thereafter the Single Judge by an order dated 21.09.1998 allowed the said Writ Petition filed by the respondent – employee holding that the enquiry conducted by the appellant is defective and hence the order of his removal from service was quashed reserving liberty to the appellant herein to hold denova enquiry against the respondent – delinquent employee and also granted certain reliefs to the respondent regarding payment of full salary from the date of suspension till the date he will be re-instituted with all consequential benefits and also for payment of monetary benefits within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said order. If the petitioner is continued under suspension until denova enquiry is completed, he shall be paid subsistence allowance including increments in addition to the back salary payable to him as above.

4. The said finding of the Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal, on the ground that the view of the Single Judge that the enquiry is defective for non issue of copies of documents pertaining to CBI and Vigilance Officer is not valid and contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court and the reasons given by Single Judge that opportunity to cross examination was not granted is contrary to the records. That the finding of the Single Judge so far as it pertains to observing that non production of documents pertaining to investigation has vitiated the enquiry is not correct, when the said documents were not relied upon for the purpose of arriving at the findings in the enquiry. Further, though the preliminary enquiry report submitted by N.P. Raghavan was not relied upon in the enquiry and the attempt on the part of the Single Judge to hold that non production of document sought for amounts to re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. When there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges, learned Single Judge should not have considered the same as case of no evidence and should have interfered with the finding of the enquiry. Further the finding to the effect that the witnesses are speaking about the contents of the documents marked through them is also untenable and contrary to the decision in Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1997 (1) LLN Page 62 and in t