The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs.

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to hold and declare that the entire inquiry conducted against the petitioner is without following the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the whole of the charge-sheet and the inquiry report and the final show-cause notice and the punishment be declared as illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside.

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the punishment is illegally inflicted and the final show-cause notice and the order of punishment are altogether different and therefore the same is illegal and the order be quashed and set aside.

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner has been wrongly refused the promotion and the sealed cover procedure has not been followed and the junior to the petitioner is promoted and therefore the order of promotion to any junior be declared as illegal and void and the petitioner be directed to be promoted to the higher post accordance with law.

(d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the recovery which has been started is illegal and therefore the order of deduction of salary be ordered to be stayed and the deduction of every month of Rs.23,043/- from the salary of the petitioner be ordered to be stopped and the same be declared as illegal and the amount which has been collected so far be ordered to be returned with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(e) Pending admission, hearing and/pr final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the final order and consequently the deduction of salary be stayed.

(f) Such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be granted.

(g) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner.”

2. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager in the Central Workshop and Transport Section and he was assigned certain duties of handling MACT cases and purchase of petrol and diesel for the Corporation and one Shri B. M. Upadhyay was assigned the same duties and he was also given duties with regard to MACT Cases for this entire period except one year beginning from 01.05.1999 to 11.06.2000, which the petitioner was Incharge of such cases. That due to negligence, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner with respect to handling MACT cases and petrol diesel work during the period from 05.02.1996 to 27.06.2001 whereby eight charges were levelled against the petitioner, which revolves non-compliance of directions of the then Joint Director Mr.J. S. Makwana and in the entire charge-sheet, no allegation of any financial loss was averred against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted a report mainly on the basis of the deposition of Mr.J.S. Makwana and Inquiry Officer has not considered the fact that the petitioner was not In-charge of MACT cases during the entire five years period, but he was only In-charge of one year and the petrol diesel duties were jointly shared by him and several other officers including one Mr.B. M. Upadhyaya, however, only the petitioner found guilty of five charges out of eight charges. It is the case of the petitioner that the final show-cause notice issued to the petitioner along with the report of the Inquiry Officer, which came to be replied by the petitioner and the case was heard by the then Labour Officer along with Mr.D. B. Makwana and after considering the relevant documents, the Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner was not guilty of any charges and after retirement of Mr.D. B. Makwana, without heari