JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has impugned order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3 saddling him with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service and order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order of punishment.

2. Petitioner who was serving respondent-Corporation as Conductor was charge-sheeted vide memo No.766/Estt. dated 13.05.1999 for a charge involving suspected fraud of Rs.132/- and for causing indiscipline by violating the rules of the corporation. The petitioner responded to the charge-sheet denying the charges. Regular inquiry was ordered. Inquiry Officer vide its report dated 30.08.2001 exonerated the petitioner of the first charge of suspected fraud. However, petitioner was indicted for the charge involving indiscipline. Disciplinary authority dissented with the inquiry report and issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 24.01.2002. After affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-1) was passed dismissing the petitioner from service. Departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order 23.10.2003 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner preferred civil suit impugning order of punishment and the same was dismissed. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, suit was decreed partly. Punishment order dated 29.07.2003 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for passing order afresh either in the light of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer or after seeking fresh report. Same charge-sheet was again issued to the petitioner vide communication dated 08.05.2013 and fresh inquiry was ordered. Again petitioner earned exoneration for the charge of fraud of Rs.132/-, but was held guilty for indiscipline. Disciplinary authority once again dissented with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and issued show cause notice dated 26.09.2013 to the petitioner proposing punishment of dismissal. The petitioner vide communication dated 30.09.2013 requested for further time of 10 days for filing reply. The petitioner was called for personal hearing on 11.10.2013. On 25.10.2013, impugned order was passed imposing extreme penalty of punishment upon the petitioner. Petitioner preferred CWP No.11227 of 2015 challenging the order of punishment.

3. Respondents raised preliminary objections w.r.t. maintainability of the writ petition in the wake of there being an alternate remedy in form of statutory appeal. CWP No.11227 of 2015 preferred by the petitioner was disposed off vide order dated 08.02.2019 and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of departmental appeal. After the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2019, present writ petition has been filed impugning the order of punishment and further order passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the same.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the process followed by the disciplinary authority in dissenting with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is per se illegal. It has been contended that before issuing show cause notice proposing punishment on the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer and asked the petitioner to respond to the same. It has been thus submitted that before reaching to the conclusion opposed to the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer, the petitioner deserved an opportunity of hearing. Reliance has been placed upon Punjab National Bank