( 1 ) SHRI V. K. Sayal was the Deputy General Manager in Bharat Heavy electricals Limited. A departmental inquiry under Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 was held against him on five charges two of which were held as proved. The said two charges are as under:-

"2 (i) Shri V. K. Sayal made Shri S. C. Nayyar, Assistant Gr. I to draw a departmental advance of Rs. 1500/- on 28. 8. 91 purportedly for repair of doors and windows of the BHEL Transit Flat situated at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The amount so drawn from the Finance Department was retained by Shri Sayal. The final settlement of the said advance was again done through Shri Nayyar on 27. 9. 91 enclosing therewith a fake Bill-cum-Receipt dated 5. 9. 91 of Rs. 1600/- from one Shri Gyas mohd. Khan, 97, Lajpat Nagar, Central Market, New Delhi. 2 (ii) On 1. 8. 91, an advance of Rs. 3000/- was taken purportedly for repair of Sofa set and Setty in the above mentioned Transit Flat. A Bill fraudulently procured from one M/s. Sharda and Co. , Lii/65, Madangir, New Delhi 110 062 for Rs. 3480/- was submitted on 19. 8. 91 against the settlement of aforesaid advance. "

( 2 ) THE report of the Enquiry Officer is dated 16th September, 1996. Consequent upon the report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order directing reduction of rank of Shri V. K. Syal from Deputy General Manager to senior Manger. Feeling aggrieved, V. K. Syal filed a writ petition. The same was dismissed by learned Single Judge on 2nd September, 1999. He has now come up in appeal.

( 3 ) WE feel, at this stage, that a brief resume of what transpired in the inquiry proceedings is called for. The Management examined fourteen witnesses. As for V. K. Syal he filed the affidavit of one Gyas Mohd. Khan by way of evidence but he did not produce him before the Enquiry Officer for cross examination. It was the Management who produced him as a witness. The said Gyas Mohd. Khan instead of lending support to the version of V. K. Syal as given in the affidavit bent forward to demolish the same. On the same day the appellant withdrew from the case. He thus remained un- represented. He did not even enter the witness box to give his version of the charges framed against him.

( 4 ) IT may be noticed that one of the witnesses examined by the management was Shri S. C. Nayyar. A major slice of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant related to this witness. We therefore feel that a few words need to be said about him. The said S. C. Nayyar also faced a departmental inquiry. In that inquiry the appellant before us had appeared as a Court witness. The inquiry report had gone against Nayyar. It so happened that when Nayyar appeared as a witness of the Management against the appellant, the appellant asked for supply of the inquiry report but the same was not made available to him. It was supplied later. It is the non- supply of this report which occupied the centre- stage of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.

( 5 ) ANOTHER ground canvassed revolved around the examination of Gyas mohammad Khan by the Management as its own witness. It was argued that he having been cited as a defence witness though not produced could not be examined, more particularly, when his name did not figure in the list of witnesses, filed by the management.

( 6 ) YET another ground taken was the examination by the Management of a witness by the name of Jamna Prasad behind the back of the appellant. Objection was also taken to the visit of the Enquiry Officer to a guest house in Safdurjung Enclave and to his making certain enquiries from the landlady. Last of all, it was contended that there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the charges against him. Of course, it was also the grievance of the appellant that the learned Single Judge had not dealt with the contentions raised by him.

( 7 ) (I) Are the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry perverse? (