The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conclusions drawn in a departmental enquiry must be based on some evidence and should not be arbitrary or perverse.

Hasnain Massodi, J.:-

1. Petitioner through medium of writ petition on hand seeks quashment of Order No. HCI/ADMN/DEL/54 Dated March 02, 2004 (Annexure H to the writ petition), whereby, he has been removed from service. He further seeks Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to treat him in-service and release all emoluments and other benefits due to him in wake of quashment of the aforementioned order. Petition arises in the factual background detailed hereafter. Petitioner was in the year 1983 appointed as House Keeping Attendant in Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar, a Unit of Hotel Corporation of India. He continued on this post till 1986, when he was adjusted as Painter in the Engineering wing of the Hotel. He earned promotions while working in the aforementioned Hotel from time to time and attained the position of Civil Supervisor in the year 2000. He while working in the respondent Hotel took part in the activities of Employees Union and was elected as President, Centaur Lake View Hotel, Employees Union sometime before 1995-96.

2. The Officers of Centaur Lake View Hotel, Srinagar in 1995-96 recruited 44 persons as against 7 available vacancies under OBC Category at different levels in the Hotel. The recruitment was made in violation of Recruitment Rules and without advertising the posts filled up. Shri N. Bhatra, Manager (O) on 30-11-95 constituted a Committee comprising of MS Salmani (Food and Beverage Controller), Shri K Prasad (Assistant Personal Officer) and Mr. Peerzada Faiz Ahmad (Lobby Manager) to conduct interview and empanel the candidates for the posts sought to be filled from the candidates under OBC Category. The Committee conducted interview on 2nd September 1995, and in its report dated 4.12.1995 recommended 28 candidates for recruitment. The recommendation was approved by Shri N. Bhatra Manager (O) and appointment orders issued by K. Prasad (Assistant Personal Officer) in favour of selected candidates. However, out of 28 appointed candidates only 27 accepted appointment. A number of non-OBC/under-qualified and under-aged candidates were recruited in contravention of Rules and Regulations.

3. The officers of the Hotel thereafter appointed 13 more candidates under ST/OBC Category. The appointment orders in favour of these candidates were issued by Shri Misbah Shawl (Personal officer). The appointments again were made in violation of Recruitment Rules and without following due procedure. Appointments were made after the Employees Union headed by petitioner demanded filling up of 12 posts reserved for ST/OBC Category at an earliest and in a meeting held at Delhi on 29th May, 1996 and 30th May, 1996 by the Hotel Management and the Union leaders including petitioner, it was decided to accede to the Union demand and fill up aforementioned posts.

4. The aforementioned appointments made under OBC Category in 1995/96 were brought to the notice of Management of Hotel Corporation of India. As the appointments made involved gross violation of Rules and Regulations and also a heavy financial loss to the Hotel Corporation of India, the Management vide memo dated 10th January, 2001 directed disciplinary proceedings under Regulation No. 80 HCI, Employees Services Regulations against the Officers/Officials responsible for the appointments. Enquiry was also directed against the present petitioner and a Single Member Enquiry Committee consisting of Mr. OM Solanki constituted vide memo No. HO/ADMN/2259 dated 29th May, 2001/1st June, 2001, replaced by Mr. P.S. D'souza Deputy General manager P&IR(O). Petitioner faced following charges:

"(i) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation.

(ii) Abetment of or attempt at abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct.

(iii) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour."

5. The Single Member Enquiry Committee enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner and the Committee found petitioner guilty of following misconduct:

"(i)