The dismissal of the petitioner was set aside due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice, entitling him to retiral benefits.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 with a further prayer for Mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner all the consequential benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner was employeed as Project Officer with respondent No.2 which is the Haryana Kalyan Nigam which is now known as Haryana Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation. In the year 1991 when he was posted as Project Officer at Common Facility Centre of respondent No.2 at Ambala Cantt., the petitioner was suspended from duty vide letter dated 23.12.1991. Thereafter, he was served with charge-sheet on 13.01.1992 under the provisions of Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam Employees Service Bye Laws and Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1987. There were total seven charges against the petitioner and a regular departmental enquiry was held. Vide Annexure P-4, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer dated 11.03.1993. Each and every charge was considered by the Enquiry Officer independently and in most of the charges it was found that the petitioner was alone not responsible for the allegations against him because he was not the recommending authority and in this way his sole responsibility was not proved by the Enquiry Officer. However in two of the charges, his sole responsibility was fixed. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer sent the enquiry report to the Punishing/Competent Authority for further course of action. However after a period of about three years the same Enquiry Officer sent another enquiry report to the concerned Disciplinary/Competent Authority vide Annexure P-6 dated 22.02.1996 in which the findings were different and which had gone to the prejudice of the petitioner. Those charges of which in the earlier report which was three years ago in which the petitioner was found to be not alone responsible for the losses, if any were now depicted as the petitioner being solely responsible for the same. Thereafter, the Punishing Authority passed a punishment order against the petitioner whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Annexure P-9 and an amount of Rs. 6,04,919/- was also directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid order of penalty of dismissal and recovery was assailed by the petitioner by filing a statutory appeal before the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors also dismissed the appeal vide Annexure P-11. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the orders of dismissal and the appellate order by filing a writ petition before this Court on the ground that the Appellate Authority has not passed a speaking order and the said writ petition was disposed of vide Annexure P-12 and a direction was issued to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order vide Annexure P-13 by which the appeal was again dismissed by the Board of Directors. The petitioner again filed a second writ petition before this Court and which was also disposed of vide Annexure P-14 on 08.05.2015. In this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the action of the respondents in passing of the dismissal order on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind and not considered the reply and submissions made by the petitioner before imposing penalty. Vide Annexure P-14, the order of dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh decision after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"Having gone through the said judgment, I am of the considered view that the exposit