An inquiry officer must adhere to natural justice principles and cannot conduct proceedings devoid of due process; failure of these rights undermines any disciplinary action taken.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"a) issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus quashing the Impugned Orders dated 25.09.2013 and 09.01.2014 as illegal, unfair, arbitrary and unjust and directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and continuity of service;

b) pass any such order or further orders that this as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fair in the facts of the case in the interest of justice."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been an employee of the respondent company for 15 years from 1998 till September 25, 2013; i.e., the date, on which, he was illegally removed from service. The petitioner was appointed on the permanent post as Junior Supervisor (Travel), Foreign Exchange in non-unionised Supervisory Grade-I on December 18, 2007. The petitioner was on probation vide appointment letter December 18, 2007. The services of the petitioner were confirmed vide letter dated December 12, 2008, with effect from December 18, 2008. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Travel), Foreign Exchange with effect from April 01, 2011 vide letter dated November 10, 2011. His post re-designated as "Officer (Forex)" with effect from July 01, 2012.

3. It is the petitioner's case that one Manoj Bahuguna, Officer (Travel), who was also an employee of the Respondent for 10 years, working at its facility at the RITES office at Gurgaon, Haryana called up the petitioner on April 02, 2013 seeking US$ 5,000/- for use by RITES. General Manager on credit basis. This request was declined by the petitioner as such a transaction was not provided for in the guidelines. On the same day Manoj Bahuguna again called the petitioner and stated that for his requirement of foreign exchange, he had approached M/s. Weizmann Forex Ltd. (`Weizmann' for short) and requested the petitioner to give a positive identification/reference in case they contacted the petitioner. A few hours thereafter one Rajeev of Weizmann telephonically enquired from the petitioner as to whether Manoj Bahuguna was in fact an employee of the respondent; to which the petitioner replied in the affirmative and stated that Manoj Bahuguna was a permanent employee of the respondent and was currently posted at the RITES office to take care of travel requirements of their officials. While the petitioner did not have much interaction with Manoj Bahuguna, he obliged as a matter of professional courtesy to a colleague who had been working in the company for the last 10 years.

4. Thereafter on April 16, 2013 he again received a telephonic call from Rajeev of Weizmann stating that they were about to raise an invoice for US$ 30,000/-, allegedly delivered to Manoj Bahuguna. The petitioner went to the office of Weizmann and impressed upon them, to not raise such an invoice, clarifying that Manoj Bahuguna had not acted in his official capacity. On the basis of clarification of the petitioner, no such invoice was raised by Weizmann and the latter has not complained against the petitioner for any infraction or wrong doing.

5. On April 17, 2013 the petitioner then intimated his immediate superior, Sandhya Malik (petitioner's reporting officer) and Pukhraj Sabarwal (Travel and Tours) of the respondent company. He was directed to record a statement in writing about the incident and in good faith the petitioner gave such a statement. The officers of the respondent situated in Delhi