Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. The employer-petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging order dt. 16.01.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the domestic enquiry conducted against the employee-respondent has been declared unfair. The employer-petitioner is further aggrieved by order dt. 19.03.2015 passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "ID Act") wherein the application filed by the employer-petitioner for seeking approval of termination of service of the employee has been rejected.

2. Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dt. 16.01.2013 has been passed on a wrong premise and the said order suffers from legal infirmities. Learned counsel has submitted that since the employee concerned had admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer, the domestic enquiry could not have been declared unfair in view of the admission of charges by the delinquent.

3. Learned counsel has argued that the delinquent-employee had ample opportunity to dispute the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority and having failed to question the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority, after the proper opportunity being afforded to defend himself, the respondent-employee could not have disputed the procedure followed by the petitioner-employer.

4. Learned counsel has argued that the employee concerned after receipt of charge-sheet before the Enquiry Officer, on first date itself admitted the charges and as such the Enquiry Officer did not commit any wrong while holding the employee guilty of the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel has argued that in respect of four charge-sheets issued to the delinquent, there was absence of as many as 123 days in total and the employee could not have been retained in service for committing a major misconduct of remaining absent on different occasions and issuance of four charge-sheets itself reflected that functioning of the employee concerned, was not in the interest of the employer.

5. Learned counsel has argued that the Industrial Tribunal while passing the order dt. 16.01.2013 about fairness of the domestic enquiry ought to have passed a reasoned order after considering the entire documents placed before it and only by assigning one reason, the order cannot said to be a legally sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel has further argued that the charge-sheet issued to the respondent-employee clearly reflected that he had no defence or justification in respect of absence from duty on various dates.

7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

8. This Court finds from perusal of the order dt. 16.01.2013 that the Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding that in respect of all the four charge-sheets, the Enquiry Officer had recorded the statement of the delinquent at first instance. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has adopted a procedure which is not the normal procedure of conducting the enquiry. The Presenting Officer on behalf of the Department is required to first lead the evidence (statement or documents) to prove the charge against the delinquent-employee and after completion of such evidence, the statement of delinquent or evidence produced, before Enquiry Officer are taken into consideration.

9. This Court finds that the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of material placed before it came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had taken the statement of the delinquent at the first instance and without even considering the allegations levelled by the employer and proved before the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was concluded and the same has been held to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. This Court had specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy as whether the procedure of holding enquiry by the Enquiry Officer was followed in proper manner and