The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the importance of compliance with principles of natural justice, and the employer's prerogative to impose punishment.

JUDGMENT

Amrita Sinha, J. - The petitioner was serving as the Accounts Officer of the National Jute Board (NJB), a statutory authority constituted in terms of the National Jute Board Act, 2008.

2. A charge sheet was issued to him on 28th April, 2015 and the Authority purported to invoke the provisions of the Central Civil Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 herein after referred to as 'CCS(CCA) Rules 1965' for carriage of the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet before this court by filing a writ petition being WP 788 of 2015 on the alleged ground that no service rule exists in NJB and the aforesaid Rules cannot be made applicable in his case. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by an order dated 1st September, 2015 wherein the Court was of the opinion that although CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 may not be strictly applicable, the principles analogous thereto shall be applicable, however, only to such extent as required for the purpose of conducting a free, fair and impartial disciplinary proceeding. The NJB was directed to appoint a fresh enquiry officer to conduct the disciplinary proceeding.

3. In compliance of the order dated 1st September, 2015 NJB reappointed the inquiry officer, again referring to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner once again filed a writ petition being WP 1208 of 2015 which was heard and disposed of by an order dated 6th October, 2015. During the course of hearing, NJB submitted before the court that the letter of reappointment of the inquiry officer was withdrawn. In view of the said submission, the Court disposed of the matter by directing the NJB to conduct the disciplinary proceeding strictly on the basis of the observation made by the Court in its earlier order dated 1st September, 2015 in WP 788 of 2015. NJB was directed to ensure that an impartial inquiry officer be appointed in place and instead of the person whose name appears in the letter dated 14th September, 2015. In compliance of the direction passed by the Court, NJB appointed a fresh inquiry officer being the Deputy Director (M) from the office of the Jute Commissioner to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was put under suspension during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding.

4. The petitioner prayed for appointing a defence assistant to put forth his case. NJB allowed the prayer of the petitioner and permitted him to take the assistance of the defence assistant. The disciplinary proceeding culminated in the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal has challenged the same in the instant writ petition.

5. The primary ground for challenge of the order of dismissal is that the principles of natural justice have not been followed at the time of enquiry. According to the petitioner the charges levelled against him were not proved. The documents sought for by the petitioner were not provided to him in spite of repeated requests. The enquiry was concluded without giving him an opportunity to put forth his defence and the objections made by him at different stages were ignored.

6. It has been submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his defence and the material relied upon by the inquiry officer is not to be treated as 'evidence' in the eye of law. It follows that the finding of the inquiry officer was based on no evidence and hence perverse. The petitioner submits that the inquiry officer concluded the enquiry immediately after examination of the employer's witness without giving the petitioner any opportunity to cross-examine them.

7. The petitioner submits that he was not the only person responsible for recommending release of subsidy. According to him, the officers of Indian Jute Industries' Research Association (IJIRA) were equally responsible for such recommendation.

8. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedi