The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and following the due process of inquiry in disciplinary proceedings.

The appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07th December, 2012 contending that in the absence of any material on record to infer that the disciplinary inquiry against the appellant had been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in proceeding to hold that the inquiry had been conducted after due opportunity, inasmuch as, even assuming that the opportunity had been offered to the appellant, the respondents had failed to prove the charges by adducing any evidence in support thereof and conducting an oral inquiry.

2. The matter was heard earlier by a bench on 03rd December, 2015 and the following order was passed: -

"Heard Sri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Ajay Kumar for the respondent.

This appeal questions the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not touched on the issue relating to the challenge raised about the process of inquiry as conducted by the Inquiry Officer and its concurrence by the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry had to proceed from the stage of the reply submitted to the charge sheet as per the judgment dated 13.4.2006.

Learned counsel submits that inspite of this clear direction and with a direction to provide the relevant documents to the petitioner and inspite of the fact that the petitioner had raised this demand, the respondent-Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry without complying with the directions contained therein and without holding either any oral inquiry or any inquiry worth the name after fixing dates as is desired under the rules and the position of law as explained by several decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. He submits that so far as providing of opportunity is concerned, the inquiry does not terminate merely because opportunity has been provided even if the same has not been availed of by the Delinquent Officer.

The submission is that in such a case for holding of an inquiry even if required ex parte, in order to prove the charges by leading evidence either documentary or orally that may be desirable to establish the same the inquiry will have to proceed.

Learned counsel submits that the inquiry report which has been submitted and has been made the basis of the punishment order relies on extracts of the earlier inquiry report that was subject matter of litigation and had already been set aside by the High Court. Except for verbatim reproduction of the recital contained in the earlier inquiry report nothing has been done in the fresh inquiry nor any fresh inquiry has been held. The contention, therefore, is that the inquiry not having been conducted on those fundamental principles in order to prove the charges against the appellant, the order of punishment could not have been sustained and this aspect of the matter also has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, as such the impugned order passed against the appellant as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside.

Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, prays that he may be permitted to study this aspect of the matter to answer the direct questions raised by the appellant.

List on 16.12.2015.

The interim order shall continue until further orders of the Court."

3. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the Court had noticed the legal infirmity in the procedure of an inquiry and had called upon the respondents to answer the same.

4. Advancing his submissions learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: -

"(A) No date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for holding an oral enquiry. No evidence was led by the department to prove the charges nor any opportunity was given to the Appellant to cross examine the witnesses.

The Enquiry Officer on the basis of reply submitted by Appellant and the earlier enquiry report submitted by th