(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Counsel for the respondents-Insurance Company.

2. The above noted writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing the dismissal order dated 29.04.2008, passed by the Deputy General Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office: Kanpur Nagar, respondent no.3 and Appellate order dated 03.12.2008, passed by the Appellate Authority, General Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai, respondent no.4 and direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Administrative Officer (Development) with all benefits of continuity of service including the arrears of service from the date of suspension of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Administrative Officer, was suspended from service by the order dated 27.05.2002 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. A Charge Sheet dated 19.05.2004 was issued to him alleging misconduct of the year, 2001-2002. On 17.06.2004, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations and praying that the documents mentioned in Annexure-C of the Charge Sheet along with upto date copy of C.D.A. Rules, 1975 may be provided to him for submitting proper reply to the charges.

4. On 06.04.2005, the petitioner again made an application that the documents prayed by him have not been supplied. The statement of the persons mentioned in Annexure-D and Annexure-A to the charge-sheet have also not been supplied to him. The petitioner made further applications specifically demanding certain documents which are mentioned in paragraph nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the writ petition. The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 gives the following reply to the averments made from paragraph no.10 to 16 of the writ petition.

"4. That as per Para 10 it is submitted that it was open to the petitioner to see those papers which he wanted in the office for which he never requested.

5. That paras 11 to 19 are again matter of record."

5. In paragraph nos.42, 43 and 44 of the writ petition, The petitioner stated as follows:

"42. That according to the information of the petitioner none of the original documents were even available with the enquiry officer/ disciplinary authority as the same stood transmitted to Central Bureau of investigation for investigation.

43. That it is further necessary to state that none of such documents were even proved.

44. That it is specifically stated that the petitioner has not been permitted inspection of a single original document. The recital in the brief of the presenting officer that the petitioner had inspected all documents on two occasions is a false and incorrect recital. On neither of the said two occasions even a single original document was shown to the petitioner for inspection."

6. In reply to the above paragraphs, the reply of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in their Counter Affidavit is as follows:

"12. That in para 42 since CBI was investigating the case the papers required by CBI had to be made available to them.

13. That as for paras 43 to 44 it is submitted that in enquiry proceedings Evidence Act does not apply. The petitioner never prayed for any such inspection and all the papers were available on each date for perusal of parties. The petitioner never made any such request or complaint."

7. From the above reply of the respondents to the averments of the petitioner that he was not given the documents required for submitting his reply to the charge sheet, the respondents have made clear averment in paragraph no.12 of the Counter Affidavit that the CBI Investigation was going on and the record was made available to the CBI. This proves that during the enquiry, the record was not available before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, it was