Disciplinary inquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice, allowing cross-examination of witnesses and cannot rely on preliminary inquiry findings without proper procedure.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the report dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-2); charge-sheet dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure P-3); inquiry report dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P-8); show cause notice dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P-7); order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioner has been removed from service and the order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-13), whereby the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the instant petition, are that on 04.08.1986, the petitioner had joined the respondent-Corporation as Technical Assistant (TA) and on 14.10.2011, he was promoted and posted as Warehouse Manager at Phagwara, Punjab. During his tenure at Phagwara, the petitioner reported storage loss to the tune of 363.83 qtls. on the basis of which charge-sheet was issued against three Warehouse Managers including Sh. Dev Raj, G.A. Infuriated by this report of the petitioner, the charge-sheeted employees in connivance with respondent No.2 filed a complaint dated 02.12.2011 against the petitioner alleging that 540 excess bags were lifted on 30.11.2011 and 01.12.2011. On the basis of said complaint, an inquiry was got conducted by respondent No.2 through Sh. S.P. Joshi, General Manager and 03 other officials. The Committee recorded statements of the complainants and prepared an enquiry report dated 15.12.2011. Neither, the findings recorded in the report were put to the petitioner nor his comments were sought with respect to the version of the complainants. Thereafter, charge-sheet dated 16.01.2012 was issued against the petitioner wherein the complaint dated 02.12.2011 and report dated 15.12.2011 were the only documents cited. Thereafter, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as the inquiry officer and a show cause notice dated 27.06.2013 was issued to the petitioner. On 03.08.2013 the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice, however, without considering his reply, respondent No.2 passed order dated 17.09.2013 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed appeal dated 03.10.2013 before respondent No.4-Appellate Authority. When no decision was taken on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.20300 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2014 with a direction to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 03 months. Thereafter, respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.11.2015 dismissed the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition.

3. In fact, the petitioner is challenging the disciplinary proceedings held by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been finally removed from the service vide order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-10) and the statutory appeal filed against that order has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from the other grounds, which have been taken in the writ petition, has submitted that before issuance of charge-sheet dated 16.01.2012, preliminary inquiry, was held and report dated 15.12.2011 was submitted by the Committee which has conducted the preliminary inquiry. In the said inquiry, statements of Tanu Saini, T.A. (Ex.-A), Kuldeep Singh (Ex.-B), Dev Raj (Ex.-C), Jaswant Singh (Ex.-D and D1) and Ram Sharan, A.G.-1 (Ex.-F) were recorded and the said statements have been considered by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 01.04.2013 without supplying copy of the same to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of cross-examining the said witnesses. He submits that the statements of above-said witnesses were recorded at the back of the petitioner. The said statements were not the part of the listed documents attached with the charge-sheet, yet the same have been