A chargesheet issued to an employee must be specific and contain all the essential ingredients of misconduct, and the enquiry proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be supplied with copies of relevant documents and the right to defend oneself through a lawyer of one's choice.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals have been preferred from the common judgment and order dated July 9, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Single judge finally disposed of two writ petitions being W. P. No. 15689 (W) of 1998 and W. P. No. 2769 (W) of 2000 respectively filed by the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner herein. The first writ petition being W. P. No. 15689 (W) of 2000 was filed challenging the order of suspension and memorandum of charges issued against the writ petitioner and the other writ petition being w. P. No. 2769 (W) of 2000 was subsequently filed by the said writ petitioner challenging the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Committee.

( 2 ) BOTH the aforesaid writ petitions were ultimately disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the common judgment and order dated 9* July, 2002 whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge not only quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report and the final order of removal of the said writ petitioner from service but also the said learned Single Judge quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said writ petitioner who is respondent No. 1 herein.

( 3 ) BY the said order under appeal learned Single Judge also directed immediate reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service with all back wages. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge appellant herein preferred the instant appeals. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the chargesheet, enquiry report, the final order of removal of the writ petitioner from service and also the entire disciplinary proceedings as according to the appellant, all steps in connection with the said disciplinary proceedings were taken following the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977.

( 4 ) MR. N. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate of the appellant submits that the competent disciplinary authority issued the chargesheet to the writ petitioner and thereafter appointed inquiring authority to conduct enquiry proceedings on the basis of the charges mentioned in the said chargesheet. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the duly constituted inquiring authority enquired into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner upon observing the principles of natural justice and procedural justice and ultimately came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the said writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein have been established. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single judge cannot sit over the findings of the Inquiring Committee as the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel of the appellant also repeatedly reminded this Court that the evidence adduced in the enquiry proceedings cannot be reassessed by this Court when fact remains that this Court never intended to reassess any evidence adduced before the Inquiring Committee. It has also been urged before this Court on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the gravity of the matter and also not considering the merits of the case passed the impugned order directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 in service with all back wages. The learned Advocate of the appellant referred to and relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments:

1) 2006 (7) SCC 558 [om Prakash Mann vs. Director of Education (Basic)and Ors. ] (Paragraph 7)2) 2006 (7) SCC 410 [general Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India and Anr. vs. Mohd. Nizamuddin] (Paragraph 9 ).

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel of the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner, however, submits that the disciplinary authority issued the chargesheet and initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner on vague charges with an intention to victimise the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein for initiating a separate proceeding before thi