1. The petitioner before this Court working as Assistant Engineer, Madhya Pradesh, Urja Vikas Nigam, Gwalior has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the punishment order dated 14.7.2009 by which a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon him and by the same order a recovery of Rs. 1,37,395.00 has also been ordered against him. The contention of the petitioner is that a ch3fge-sheet was issued on 30.8.1997 levelling 5 charges against the petitioner and the petitioner did submit a reply of the charges levelled against him and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the alleged misconduct. The petitioner has further stated that the Inquiry Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry as provided under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner in respect of all charges, the copy of enquiry report is on record as Annexure P-7. The petitioner has further stated that the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the enquiry report has forwarded the dissenting note on 7.10.2006 and the petitioner has thereafter submitted his reply to the dissenting note on 26.10.2006 and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order on 14.7.2009 inflicting a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as well as has directed recovery of Rs. 1,37,395.00 against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the charge-sheet was issued as per the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the Inquiry Officer after minutely scrutinizing the entire material on record has exonerated the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that the Disciplinary Authority without assigning cogent reasons and without referred to any statement of even a single witness has held the petitioner guilty of four charges out of five charges. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dissenting note wherein the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the view expressed by the Inquiry Officer. His contention is that the Disciplinary Authority with total non-application of mind has issued a dissenting note and the punishment order based upon the dissenting note which is also not based on any evidence and also deserves to be quashed.

2. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Corporation and the contention of the respondent Corporation is that the Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable as service dispute is involved in the present writ petition which involves private law elements. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent -- Corporation has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench in the case of Sunil Kumar Saxena v. Holy Cross Ashram Higher Secondary School, Datia (M.P.) and others, 2010 (1) JLJ 221 = 2009 (4) MPLJ 641, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held a writ petition not maintainable in such circumstances. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this Court that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. It has also been argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Disciplinary Authority was well within its domain to assign cogent reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It has also stated that the dissenting note was served to the petitioner and the petitioner was also given an opportunity to file a reply to the dissenting note and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 has inflicted upon a punishment