JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari, order or direction, directing the order dated 24.12.2008 and the order dated 26.06.2009 and the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Punishment Authority, Appellate Authority and Revision Authority respectively are illegal, improper, arbitrary and contrary to the evidences on record and be further pleased to direct the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is illegal, improper, perverse and contrary to the evidences on record.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be further pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service alongwith all consequential benefits with full backwages.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed firm in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

2.1 The petitioner was working with the respondent department as a Wireless Operator at Nabipur Police Station since 2002. The petitioner was having unblemished service record with the respondents and he was never served with any kind of charge or Memo during his service tenure with the respondents. However, by order dated 24.12.2008, the petitioner came to be dismissed from the service for so-called charges and after conducting the so-called inquiry. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority by way of preferring an appeal, which came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.02.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the orders, the petitioner had again approached the respondent No. 3 herein by way of appeal, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 27.10.2009.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was served with the order of suspension on 26.06.2008 and thereafter, he was served with the charge-sheet alongwith the intimation regarding the appointment of Inquiry Officer and commencing the inquiry. Thereafter, the respondent authority by letter dated 19.07.2008 appointed the Inquiry Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of inquiry, the respondents had not given proper opportunity to the petitioner, some relevant documents asked by the petitioner were also not provided to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer had also not conducted the inquiry by challenging the principles of natural justice and thus, the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer was in total violation of principles of natural justice.

2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner that by letter dated 25.10.2008, the petitioner had filed his reply before the Inquiry Officer clarifying all the averments and denying the so-called charges alleged against the petitioner. The said reply filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer while recording the findings. It is the case of the petitioner that without providing the relevant documents and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was contrary to the principles of natural justice and also the so-called show cause notice dated 15.11.2008 issued by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply dated 27.11.2008 to the so-called show cause notice.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the replies filed by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings against the petitioner. That, the Inquiry Officer had deliberately not considered the reply filed by the petitioner and had also not recorded the findings as a neutral person. That, the Inquiry Officer had acted as an employee of the respondent authority and therefore, without considering the averments made in the reply and without d