The disciplinary proceedings must be supported by evidence, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not disentitle a petitioner from maintaining a writ petition.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. It has been stated that the above writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 3. 2004, imposing the punishment of demotion on the petitioner, demoting him to a post of Checking Inspector, in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-150-9100, for a period of three years and the order of the second respondent (Appellate Authority), dated 26. 2004, confirming the same.

3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had joined in the service of the first respondent Corporation as a Conductor, on 85. Later, he was promoted to the post of Senior Checking Inspector Grade-II and further promoted to the post of Checking Inspector Grade-I. While so, the petitioner was issued with the charge sheet, dated 4. 2003, stating that he had acted as a broker in arranging certificates to the public for monetary consideration and for having collected Rs.300/-from one J. Manoharan, Senior Operator Grade-II, Boiler Operation, TS-II, for obtaining a community certificate.

4. It has been stated that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner does not relate to any of his activities he was expected to perform at the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Therefore, the action contemplated against the petitioner by the respondents is without jurisdiction. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner a disciplinary enquiry had been conducted, with regard to the charges alleged against the petitioner. During the enquiry the respondent Management had examined M. Perumal, EHC, Vigilance Department, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. In his statement M. Perumal had marked a statement alleged to have been given by one J. Manoharan. He had also produced certain statements made by P. Poulina and Janardanan to support the allegation that the petitioner had received money for obtaining the community certificate. When, J. Manoharan had been examined during the enquiry he had categorically stated that the petitioner had not received the sum of Rs.300/-from him for obtaining the community certificate. While answering the questions asked by the enquiry officer J. Manoharan had denied giving the sum of Rs.300/- for getting the community certificatee. He had also submitted that the statements made by him were at the instance of the Vigilance Department and that it was not voluntary in nature, as it was made due to the apprehension that the house building advance would not be given to him if he did not make such a statement. However, the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner had been proved, without considering the detailed written submissions given by the petitioner, on 18. 2003 and 29. 2003.

5. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, dated 110. 2003, the disciplinary authority, the first respondent herein, had issued a show cause notice, dated 12. 2003, proposing the punishment of demotion to the lower category of Checking Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-150-9100. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the said show cause notice by his letter, dated 12. 2003. However, the first respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, had passed an order, dated 3. 2004, demoting the petitioner to the lower category of Checking Inspector. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent, on 23. 2004. The second respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without taking into account the objections raised in the said appeal, had dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order, without giving any reason for dismissing the appeal. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner has raised various grounds in challenging the impugned