In cases where the employer dispenses with the services of an employee on the ground of defined misconduct, as provided under Rule 24A, he is not required to give any notice, but he is required to conduct an inquiry in accordance with Sub-Rule (2) Rule 24A i. e. he is required to conduct an inquiry into the charges by giving a reasonable opportunity to the employee i e. by following the principles of natural justice and, in case, there is no such inquiry, it would mean no inquiry at all, as no inquiry or defective inquiry stands on the same footing. I he consequence of defective inquiry or no inquiry would be that proviso to Section 78A would not be attaracted and the action of the management in dispensing with the services will be null and void.

1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Jaipur against the order dated 30th September, 1986, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, directing the petitioner to reinstate iv employee N. D. Gupta, who had been dismissed vide its order dated 19th June, 1985.

2. Though the point raised in this case lies in a narrow compass, but it will be relevant to mention some of the facts leading to the present writ petition: The petitioner Corporation is engaged in tourism development in the country. The petitioner Corporation runs various hotels in the country and one Hotel Jaipur Ashok, Jaipur is managed by it. Respondent No.. was an employee of the petitioner and was working in Hotel Jaipur Ashok, where he was posted as Junior Accountant. It is alleged that while discharging his duties he had committed a misconduct pertaining to the embezzlement of Rs. 2,000/- in nine spells by making interpolation in the record by way of alterations and cuttings in foreign exchange encashment certificates and receipts and in the related account books. Respondent No.2 was served with a charge-sheet. After the receipt of the charge-sheet respondent No. 2 filed a reply, which was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and, therefore he ordered a domestic inquiry into the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, finding respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the report of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 2 proposing a penalty of dismissal from service. Respondent No. 2 submitted a reply to the Disciplinary Authority who found the reply unsatisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal against respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 19th June, 1985. Aggrieved by the order of termination, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Sec 28A of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (in short, the Act) challenging his termination. The Authority under the Act after hearing the parties set aside the order of termination passed against respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 with all back wages. It may be stated here that the Authority under the Act held that the inquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not fair as respondent No, 2 was not given a fair opportunity to defend his case. On critical analysis, the Authority under the Act observed that the domestic enquiry was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is to assail the order of the Authority under the Act, (respondent No. I) dated 30th September, 1986, that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Mr. M.K Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that. the order dated 30th September. 1986 passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal and cannot be sustained on the following grounds:

(a) That the finding of the learned Authority that respondent No. 2 had been denied the right of defence and, therefore, the inquiry was unfair and in breach of the principles of natural justice, is not based on any evidence on record and is a perverse finding.

(b) That the learned Authority, respondent No. 1, has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Section 28A of the Act, which permits the Authority to allow the employee (sic employer) to adduce additional evidence to prove the charge of misconduct levelled against the employee. Since respondent No. I did not allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence to prove the charge of misconduct against respondent No. 2, respondent No. I has acted without jurisdiction and the order dated 30th September, 1986, liable to b;, set aside.

4. Shri P.K. Sharma, learned counsel for re