Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner while working as conductor in the respondent corporation was charge-sheeted by means of 2 charge-sheets dated 3.1.1992, alleging irregularities and misconduct in issuing tickets to the passengers. The petitioner filed his replied dated 29.2.1992 and 6.4.1992 respectively to the 2 charge-sheets. The Disciplinary Authority directed enquiry into the charges by appointing an Enquiry Officer who submitted his 2 enquiry reports dated 28.6.1993 and 2.6.1993. The respondent No. 3, the disciplinary authority, passed punishment order dated 28.2.1995 against which the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority by his order dated 27.10.1995 and by the Reviewing Authority by his order dated 8.10.1996.

3. The petitioner has submitted that the enquiry against him was illegal since he was not given any opportunity to examine and /or cross-examination of any witness. The Enquiry Officer did not exhibit any material documents relied upon the respondents and none of the documents were prov