The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that senior officers with supervisory control are responsible for ensuring compliance with rules and regulations, and the limitations of the High Court's interference in departmental inquiries.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.2.2000 (Annexure P10) passed by respondent no.1, vide which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has also sought quashing of the order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P17) passed by respondent no.2, whereby his departmental appeal has been dismissed. Petitioner also sought the writ of Mandamus to reinstate him with full back wages and all consequential benefits and also sought release of CPF, Gratuity, leave encashment and other service benefits.

2. The facts of the case as made out from the pleadings are that the petitioner was working as an Additional General Manager with the Haryana Financial Corporation. He was the incharge of the leasing section. There were allegations against the petitioner being incharge of the leasing section as well as Shri Ajit M. Sharan, IAS, Managing Director and one Manisha Gupta, Leasing Manager, Haryana Financial Corporation regarding irregularities and illegalities in grant and certain acts and omissions, regarding advancements of finances to various firms and companies. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 11.8.1996 (Annexure P1). He was served with 17 charge sheets in the year 1996. Other two officers i.e. Shri Ajit M. Sharan, IAS, Managing Director Sanctioning Authority and one Manisha Gupta, Leasing Manager were also charge sheeted. Petitioner claimed that the Managing Director was not competent to pass the order of the suspension. Petitioner further claimed that he was not the final authority to clear the each case. He was working only on supervisory capacity. Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation has delegated the authority to the Managing Director to sanction, release, lease finances and to implement the leasing schemes/ operations. Petitioner was duty bound to follow the instructions of the Managing Director. Collateral securities were cleared by the legal division headed by the inquiry officer Shri Sudhir Verma. The securities were later on found to be fake. Therefore, the entire blame could not be shifted to the Leasing Division headed by the petitioner. It was further stated that the respondent Corporation also lodged as many as 8 FIRs in the year 1996 and 1997 in the leasing cases (Annexure P5). In all the cases, the petitioner has either been discharged or acquitted. It is further stated that originally Shri B.R. Goyal was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. However, on the objection of the petitioner, Shri Sudhir, who was Head of the Legal Division was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Two Presenting Officers were appointed, namely, Subhash Arora and K.R. Iyyer. Enquiry Officer was legally qualified having degree of LLB. One Pankaj Mittal, Manager (Leasing) was also associated with the inquiry proceedings on behalf of the respondent Corporation, whereas no legal assistance was provided to the petitioner. Enquiry Officer hurriedly concluded the inquiry proceedings on 30.12.1998. Petitioner was given show cause notice dated 2.7.1999 (Annexure P8). Petitioner submitted his reply, which was to be considered by the Administrative Division, which was headed by the Enquiry Officer himself. Petitioner was dismissed from service on 17.2.2000 (Annexure P10). Managing Director had passed the order of the dismissal. The matter was not forwarded to the Board of Directors and no prior approval of the Board of Directors was obtained. Petitioner further claimed that cases could not be cleared without the clearance being given by Sudhir Verma, who was heading the Legal Division. Petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 43(b) of the Regulations 1967. Since the appeal was not decided for more than seven months, the petitioner filed CWP No.16884-2000 challenging the illegal suspension and illegal order of dismissal. This Court vide order dated 8.12.2000 (Anne