MANJU GOEL, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petition is directed against the order of removal from service dated 9. 2. 1989. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the General Manager of Adilabad Unit of respondent No. 1, Cement Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `respondent' ). He was served with a charge-sheet on 22. 8. 1986 which is annexure I, which reads as under:"statement OF ARTICILES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI M. L. AGRAWAL, THE THEN general MANAGER, CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA, ADILABAD CEMENT FACTORY (PRESENTLY chief MANAGER, CCI, NEW DELHI)ARTICLE-I sh. M. L. Agrawal, while functioning as General Manager, CCI, Adilabad cement Factory, during December'84 accepted an unsolicited offer of M/s Deep auto and Allied Industries, Hyderabad, with the intention to cause undue favour to the form in the matter of procurement of Buckets for Deep Bucket Conveyor. Total value of the purchase was over Rs. 1 lakh but neither the Open Tender procedure nor the Limited Tender Procedure was followed/adopted. The purchase proposal was prepared on the day the party personally approached, was approved by him and order was placed on a "single Party" violating the provisions of the purchase Policy of the Corporation. ARTICLE-II sh. M. L. Agrawal also misused his position and interfered with the work of his subordinates by instructing them to process the matter was per his wishes in total disregard of the prescribed procedure of the Corporation. Sh. M. L. Agrawal, by is above acts, exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Senior Executive of the Corporation, thereby violating rule 7 read with Rule 27 (x), (xviii) and (xxxv) of the CCI's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. "

( 2 ) AN inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in which the charges were found to be proved. The inquiry was conducted by Shri S. K. Roy, Inquiring authority, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. The report of the inquiring Authority is dated 28. 12. 1988. On the basis of the inquiry report the impugned order was passed on 9. 2. 1989. The impugned order narrates that on careful consideration of the inquiry report and the record of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority, namely, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and taking into consideration the facts, records and circumstances of the case, it was satisfied that good and sufficient reasons existed for imposing on Shri M. L. Agarwal (the petitioner) the penalty of removal from service. Accordingly the penalty of removal from service was imposed. The grounds on which the order of removal as well as the inquiry proceedings are challenged are as under: (i)the punishment order of 9. 2. 1989 is a non-speaking order without disclosing the reasons and grounds in support thereof. The order has been passed without application of mind and, therefore, violative of Article 32 (2) of the constitution; (ii) adequate opportunity to defend was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner continuously requested for supply of certain documents for his defene which were turned down by the Inquiring Authority. Further the petitioner was not permitted to produce his witness during the inquiry proceedings; (iii)no forum for appeal has been provided under the Rules; (iv)the petitioner has been discriminated against as the repeat orders placed by the petitioner was based on the practices of the respondent Corporation; (v)the report of the Inquiring Authority is without reasons; (vi)the Inquiring Authority has taken into consideration only the defence produced by the department and has not considered the defence of the petitioner particularly the statement of DW-1 Mr. R. M. Maheshwari who deposed that there was no audit objection to the purchases made by the petitioner; and (vii)the report of the Inquiring Authority was wrong on the basis of evidence before it.

( 3 ) THE petition is opposed by the respondent. A counter affidavit has been file