1. The petitioner in the present petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 24.04.2009 and the appellate order dismissing his appeal dated 18.12.2009.

2. Briefly stated, the facts material for adjudication of the present petition may be stated thus:

3. The petitioner was appointed as Account Officer vide order dated 17.05.2001, and he joined the respondent-Corporation on 11.06.2001. He was confirmed as Account Officer in the pay scale of Rs.12000-17500 w.e.f. 11.06.2002. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) by the order dated 08.04.2005. A vigilance inquiry was undertaken against him in the month of September 2007, when he was working with Gujarat office of the respondent–Corporation. While inquiring in to some financial irregularities in the office of IOC at Ahmedabad, he was inquired by the Vigilance Officer and his statements were recorded on 29.09.2007 and on 18.10.2007. On 19.10.2007, the petitioner was again called and was asked to give further statement on the same date wherein he had admitted his guilt. On the basis of said statements, departmental proceedings were initiated and he was placed under suspension by the order dated 25.10.2007. Simultaneously, a police complaint was also registered by Deputy General Manager, Vigilance to ACB Unit II, CBI at New Delhi u/s. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B, 420, 409, 468, 471, 477A, 201 of the IPC.

4. The departmental inquiry was initiated vide chargesheet dated 30.05.2008 which was issued under Rule 26 of the Conduct and Discipline Rules, 1980. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid chargesheet and denied all charges.

5. The inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary authority sent a copy of the said report with letter dated 25.01.2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit his representation. The petitioner accordingly submitted his representation on 19.02.2009.

6. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.04.2009 dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Director, Marketing/ Appellate authority on 23.06.2009. The appellate authority by the order dated 03.12.2009 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

7. Learned advocate Mr.Sandip C. Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that since no showcause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation qua quantum of punishment, the same is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on Rule 32(4) of the Indian Oil Corporation, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules, 1980 in support of his submission relating to non-issuance of showcause notice qua quantum of penalty. He has stated that there are various penalties specified under the Rules including minor and major, hence, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to call upon the petitioner for submitting his representation against the finding of the inquiry officer and also further issue showcause notice qua quantum of punishment. Since the petitioner was not given any chance to represent against the quantum of punishment which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order of dismissal is required to be quashed and set aside.

8. It is also urged by Mr.Shah that the appellate authority while rejecting his appeal has not assigned any reasons, hence the order being nonspeaking order is required to be set aside.. He has also relied on Rule 38 of the said rules, more particularly, Rule 38(2) in support of his contention that the appellate authority is required to consider the findings of the inquiry officer and has to arrive on the conclusion whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and thereafter pass appropriate orders.

9. Mr. Shah has also submitted that the copy of the prelim