1. Heard Shri M.P. Jaiswal, the learned advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. The record shows that there has not been appearance on behalf of the respondent since last few dates.

2. The petition is filed by the widow of the employee challenging the orders passed by the subordinate Authorities dismissing the complaint filed by the employee.

3. Shri Nandan Mahadeorao Deogade was working as Peon with the respondent/University since 18th April, 1984 and was also given the work of Choukidar time to time. At the relevant time, Shri Nandan Deogade was working as Choukidar.

4. The Enquiry Officer, along with communication dated 28th May, 1987, had given the copy of statement of allegations and copy of chargesheet to Shri Nandan Deogade alleging misconduct on the part of Shri Nandan Deogade. The statement of allegations was signed by the Disciplinary Authority and the chargesheet was signed by the Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the respondent/University that Shri Nandan Deogade had admitted the guilt, however, the enquiry was conducted against Shri Nandan Deogade and after the enquiry was completed, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against Shri Nandan Deogade were proved. The Registrar of the respondent/University, by the communication dated 6th January, 1988 dismissed Shri Nandan Deogade.

5. Shri Nandan Deogade challenged the order of dismissal by filing complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court by the order dated 17th July, 1995 concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse and that the dismissal of Shri Nandan Deogade did not amount to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent/University. The complaint was dismissed. Shri Nandan Deogade challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by the impugned order has dismissed the revision. In the meantime, Shri Nandan Deogade died. The petitioner widow of Shri Nandan Deogade has filed this writ petition.

6. Shri Jaiswal, the learned advocate for the petitioner has raised several points. It is submitted that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly and Shri Nandan Deogade was not given opportunity to cross-examine Shri Mishra who is examined in the enquiry. The most important and appealing submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer was appointed before issuance of statement of allegations and the chargesheet, and that the chargesheet was prepared and given to Shri Nandan Deogade by the Enquiry Officer which is not permissible in law. In support of this submission, Shri Jaiswal the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. V.K. Khanna and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 343. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the petitioner I have examined the documents placed on the record of the writ petition. The service conditions of the non-teaching employees of the respondent/University were, at the relevant time, governed by the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 [for short Standard Code Rules of 1984]. Rule 46 of the Standard Code Rules of 1984 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalty. Rule 46(2) of the Standard Code Rules of 1984 lays down that where it is proposed to hold enquiry against any employee, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite or distinct articles of charge. Rule 46(3) of the Standard Code Rules of 1984 lays down that the Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the employee, in Form 10 of Appendix I appended to the Rules, a copy of the articles of charge, the st