In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The burden of proof lies on the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere. Gross violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice justifies payment of full back wages.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of common order of dismissal dated 28.03.1998 passed in three different departmental proceedings as well as for quashing the appellate order dated 30.09.2005, as communicated vide letter dated 20.10.2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a charge sheet dated 26.07.1996 was issued by the respondents on the allegation that the petitioner in collusion with the promoter of one M/s. Maurya Electricals, Fulwari Sharif, Patna had wrongly recommended for release of a sum of Rs. 3.79 lakhs on 19.04.1989 without checking of books of accounts and had further connived with the fraudulent promoters and the machine supplier and defrauded the Corporation resulting in loss to the tune of Rs. 12.06 lakhs. A second charge sheet dated 17.10.1996 was thereafter issued by the respondents against the petitioner herein regarding the petitioner having engaged in grave misconduct, negligence of duties and responsibilities as well as acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation in discharge of his duties as Branch Manager of the erstwhile Patliputra Branch, Patna while dealing with the loan files of M/s. Subhadra Engineering, Patna, M/s. Eastern India Industries, Patna and M/s. Deepa Enterprises, Patna. A third charge sheet dated 09.04.1997 was issued to the petitioner herein on the allegation of having recommended and disbursed loan amount which was not at all permissible as well as recommending for disbursement of loan amount in favour of a totally fake machine supplier namely M/s. Technical Fabrico India, Patna. The Enquiry Officer had conducted ex parte enquiry and submitted enquiry report dated 07.01.1997 with respect to the first charge sheet, enquiry report dated 17.01.1998 with regard to the second charge sheet and enquiry report dated 19.01.1998 as far as the third charge sheet is concerned. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued on 08.01.1997 in connection with first charge sheet, a second show cause notice dated 28.01.1998 was issued pertaining to the second show cause notice and a second show cause notice dated 12.2.1998 was issued regarding the third charge sheet. The disciplinary authority had then by an unreasoned and bald common order of punishment imposed penalty of dismissal from the services of the Corporation, upon the petitioner herein. The said order of punishment dated 28.03.1998 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated 20.10.2005.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no papers/documents were annexed to the charge sheet and despite a request being made by the petitioner, the same were not made available to the petitioner herein resulting in the entire departmental proceeding being vitiated. It is submitted that the enquiry was completed hurriedly with oblique motive and the enquiry reports were submitted in a perverse manner holding the charges to have been proved without any evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that neither any witness was examined to prove the charges nor any documents were exhibited or proved in support of the charges, hence the present case is a case of no evidence, thus the entire enquiry stands vitiated and consequently the order of punishment has got no legs to stand, hence is fit to be set aside. It is submitted that extraneous findings have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in fact the Enquiry Officer has himself introduced extraneous documents and materials, which were never made available to the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the order of punishment dated 28.03.1998 is itself perverse inasmuch as the same neither discloses any reason for inflicting punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner herein nor depicts any application of mind and merely narrates the sequence of events. Similarly, it is submitted that the appellate order does not deal with any of the issues ra