Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. The challenge by means of this writ petition is to the orders passed by the departmental authorities; disciplinary authority and the appellate authority; whereby petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal from service. Penalty has been imposed inasmuch as petitioner was found guilty of harassing, threatening and causing sexual harassment of a lady employee Smt. Bimla Sharma.

2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length on innumerable number of points which have been argued before me. The different heads of arguments pertain to non-supply of documents during the enquiry proceedings, bias of the Director of the respondent No.1, bias of the enquiry officer, charges being vague, non-supply of Hindi translation of documents, there being no eye witnesses who have been examined, appellate authority not giving personal hearing etc etc. However before I deal with each of the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, I must state that I strictly and legally do not have to do so inasmuch as petitioner in the enquiry proceedings was proceeded ex parte, he did not cross-examine any witnesses of the management, he did not lead evidence of any of his witnesses and did not step into the witness box to disprove the evidence against him. The management had examined 11 witnesses and filed and proved various documents. Once the proceedings are ex parte, and there is no reason to hold that the proceedings have been wrongly held ex parte, there cannot take place arguments by the petitioner as if he is arguing before the enquiry officer on all the points and issues which actually should have been urged before the enquiry officer and evidence led accordingly before the enquiry officer. Even in a normal civil appeal against an ex parte judgment and decree, the defence of the defendant who has proceeded ex parte is not looked into, and in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the same is all the more so because the scope of hearing before a Court in a petition under Article 226 is extremely limited and report of the enquiry officer and the orders of the departmental authorities are set aside only if the findings are perverse or in violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of rules/law. Therefore, once the enquiry officer has given a detailed report running into 26 pages, after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence before him, such an ex parte report cannot be set aside in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because there is no perversity in the findings and nor is there any violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for respondent no.1 has rightly relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Major U.R. Bhatt Vs. Union of India AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1344: (1962) I LLJ 656 wherein in para-6 of the said judgment it is held that once a charged officer is rightly proceeded ex parte thereafter he cannot challenge the proceedings of the enquiry on the ground of unfairness and incompleteness.

3. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the arguments urged before me are as if a first appeal is being argued where a person has put his defence; though the fact of the matter is that there was no defence of the petitioner before the departmental authorities and therefore the proceedings before this Court cannot be converted into proceedings before an enquiry officer where the petitioner seeks to argue his case afresh on the basis of a defence which does not exist in the enquiry proceedings. Also, as the subsequent narration in the judgment will show that even on facts the petitioner has been grossly misleading the Court with respect to arguments which have been urged. I must in this regard put on record my appreciation for the thoroughness in which the counsel for the respondent No.1 has rebutted the arguments of the petitioner and assisted the Court.