The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, including providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the employee facing disciplinary action.

1. The present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the validity of the order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Industrial Court/respondent No.2 in Appeals No.529/MPIR Act/91 and 5691MPIR Act/91.

2. The undisputed facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 9.5.1983 and was posted at Bilaspur Depot. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet (Annexure R/7) for having committed misconduct under Section 12(1)(B)(D) of the Standing Orders by permitting 40 passengers to travel without tickets between Sargaon to Bilaspur on 12.9.1990. The charge-sheet was issued by the Depot Manager (Enquiry), Bilaspur. The enquiry was conducted by the same officer i.e. Depot Manager (Enquiry), Bilaspur.

3. Consequently, by order dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure R/12), the petitioner was dismissed from service by the same person i.e. Depot Manager (Enquiry), Bilaspur without issuing show cause notice and without supplying a copy of the enquiry report.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application under Section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after having considered all the facts, came to the conclusion that the enquiry was ex-parte and the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was permitted to examine one of the management witnesses and the petitioner was further not permitted to lead his evidence in support of his case. In view of that, the Labour Court by order dated 24.9.1991 (Annexure P/2) found that the order of termination was illegal and improper and accordingly, directed the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner on the post of the Conductor without back wages.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved, by refusal to grant back wages, filed appeal before the Industrial Court being Appeal No. 529/MPIR Act/91. The respondent No. 1 also filed an appeal against the order of reinstatement being Appeal No. 569/MPIR Act/91. The Industrial Court, after having considered the cases of both the parties, by common order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P/1) held that the petitioner has collected the money to the tune of Rs. 160/- from the passengers and defalcated the same deliberately. Hence, the order of the Labour Court dated 24.9.1991 (Annexure P/2) was quashed and the impugned termination order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P/1) was held valid and legal.

6. Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner' submits that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing and the enquiry was proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not granted opportunity to examine his witnesses and to cross examine one of the witnesses of the management. Learned counsel next submitted that the petitioner was present throughout in the enquiry proceedings which started on 17.10.1990, except on few occasions on the ground of unavoidable circumstances. The petitioner was present on 4.7.1991 when the enquiry officer fixed the matter on 19.7.199\ for evidence. On 19.7.1991, the petitioner could not make himself available due to unavoidable circumstances. The enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte, declining the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and closed the enquiry for orders. Action of the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte under such, circumstances amounts to denial of fair-play in action. It was next contended that the Disciplinary Authority, Depot Manager (Enquiry) himself was the charge-sheeting officer, enquiring officer, presenting officer and disciplinary authority. The enquiring officer could not have acted as presenting officer. It amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and causes prejudices against the petitioner. The prosecutor cannot be a judge. The conduct of the disciplinary authority by performing all the duties