The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to be heard, were upheld during the departmental enquiry, as required by the applicable regulations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was holding the post of Junior Assistant with the respondent No.5 and claims to have unblemished service record. It is stated that in the year 2006, false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he had misappropriated the funds of the respondent-Corporation by resorting to illegal practice and subsequently FIRs bearing No.50/2016, 51/2016, 52/2016, 53/2016 and 54/2016 were registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Srinagar, against the petitioner and other accused persons. The petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 01.12.2006 and vide order dated 04.12.2006, he was relieved from his place of posting with a direction to report to the office of respondent No.5, for the purpose of facing enquiry in respect of the allegations levelled against him. It is stated that only a charge sheet came to be framed and served upon the petitioner which was duly replied by him thereby denying all the charges levelled in the said charge sheet and thereafter no departmental enquiry into the matter was ever undertaken and culminated thereby providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of his continuous suspension, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1768/2011 for grant of subsistence allowance with a further prayer for quashing of the order of suspension and this Court vide order dated 18.08.2011 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and take a decision within a period of four weeks.

2. As the order mentioned above was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner filed a petition for initiating contempt proceedings wherein the statement of facts was filed by the respondents therein and for the first time the petitioner was informed that his services had been terminated in the year 2009.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition thereby challenging the order dated 09.02.2009, whereby his services were terminated by the respondent No.3with effect from 01.12.2006, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was never informed about the initiation, conduct or culmination of the departmental enquiry proceedings in respect of the allegations levelled against him and it was incumbent upon on the part of the respondents to afford him an opportunity of hearing during the course of departmental proceedings, in order to defend himself against the false and frivolous allegations levelled against him. In nutshell, the petitioner has impugned the order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard.

4. The reply stands filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petition is hit by the principle of delay and laches and also that the petitioner has not availed an alternative remedy of appeal as provided by the Regulations of the Corporation. It is stated that while the petitioner was discharging functions of Cashier in the office of Depot Manager, Kupwara, certain allegations of misappropriation of funds of the Corporation were reported necessitating reconciliation of accounts for the period w.e.f. 2002 to 2006. The reconciliation revealed misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.25,58,786/ by the petitioner during the above mentioned period. The modus operandi adopted was to deposit less amount of revenue in the bank account and the counter-folio of the bank receipt would be tampered by him thereby converting the amount of the credit slips to correspond with the revenue reflected in the books of accounts of the Corporation. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide order dated 01.12.2006. Initially, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and in view of prima facie case of embezzlement, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 21.04.2008. The petitioner was asked to submit his response and thereafter a full-fledged departmental enquiry was ordered vide order dated 09.07.2008 but despite notices sent to