The judgment emphasizes the importance of conducting fair and proper departmental enquiries in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as established in the Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 1227.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of C.W.P. No. 4473 of 2004. The respondent- Haryana Roadways had terminated the services of the workman-appellant. He had worked in Haryana Roadway for about 3 years as Helper from 7.12.1986 to 5.12.1989. On the allegation of absence for two months from duty w.e.f. 22.5.1989 to 23.7.1989, an enquiry was held where charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer in his report. A copy of the inquiry report along with a note of agreement by the Appointing Authority has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, which reads thus:-

"On receipt of a written report from Sh. Bhagwati Parshad, T.R.C. in this office, the official/Employee was charge-sheeted vide No. 8736/EA/ECW dated 6.6.89, vide which the following allegations were leveled against the official/workman. "A report has been received against Sh. Dinesh Kumar helper that he has been absent from the office since 22.5.89, with not any prior information or without any sanction of leave. By doing so, he disobeyed this orders and has created indiscipline. He is charged of remaining willful absent from duty from 22.5.89 andalso disobedience of orders."

The charge-sheet was sent on the home address of the official, but the official did not submit his reply and he was reminded vide No. 10276/EC dated 1.7.89, but the official did not tender his reply. I was appointed as enquiry officer vide order No. 12728/ECdt. 10.8.89 for conducting regular departmental enquiry. For proceeding the enquiry, I called the complaint and the delinquent official on 26.10.89 and the statement of Sh. Bhagwati Parshad was recorded before the delinquent official. The official was given full opportunity to cross examine the complaint. The official stated that he did not want to ask any question. In the capacity of enquiry officer, I asked several questions. In reply to my question, the complaint clarified. That the official remained absent from duty from 22.5.89 to 23.7.89 without sanction of leave. Thereafter, the statement of the official was recorded and in the capacity of Enquiry officer, I asked several questions. The official clarified in reply to one of my question that he did not give any information to the office in regard to his illness. Thereafter, the official was given opportunity of producing any witness in his defense, but he declined and showed his inability to produce any witness. Conclusion At last I carefully examine the allegations leveled against the official enquiry proceedings and the record of case file. After having examined carefully, I have come concluded that the official is guilty of remaining absent from 22.5.89 to 23.7.89 without sanction of have and without any information, because the official disturbed the essential services and disobeyed the office order. So, the allegations leveled against the official are fully proved. Sd/-Enquiry Officer Transport Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon I agree with the report. So issue show cause notice to the employee. Sd/-"

2. The workman-appellant challenged the enquiry report before the Labour Court arguing that the enquiry was vitiated because no opportunity of hearing was granted. The whole enquiry proceedings were completed in one hearing on 26.10.1989 allegedly in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The workman-appellant succeeded before the Labour Court and the view of the Labour Court has been expressed in its short award, dated 13.5.2003 (P-13) which reads as under :-

"3. Dinesh Kumar petitioner made his statement on oath as WW-1 and stated that his services were illegally terminated by the management through the continuously worked as Helper from7.5.1986 to4.12.1989. It has further come in the statement of this witness that his services were illegally terminated because the enquiry did not allow him to defend himself properly