Proper conduct of departmental inquiries and the examination of submissions made in defense are essential for justifying dismissal from service.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25-8-2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. It is contended that the allegations were made against the petitioner that certain land owned by the respondent No. 1 was encroached upon and construction was done. The petitioner was called upon to remove such encroachment but this was not done, therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension and inquiry was conducted against him. It is alleged that in the departmental inquiry adequate opportunity of defence was not extended to the petitioner inasmuch as the inquiry officer himself examined the witnesses of the department and recorded their statement. Inquiry report was given against the petitioner after conducting the inquiry in such illegal manner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but again the relevant documents were not made available, as a result though the explanation was submitted by the petitioner with respect to the second show cause notice yet the same was not taken into consideration and the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order. Since the inquiry itself was conducted in illegal manner, the order impugned could not have been passed against the petitioner. As such the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to the quashed. It is very categorically contended by the petitioner that the land was said to be purchased by Narendra Kumar who is son of the petitioner but is living separately. The action was initiated by the respondents against said Narendra Kumar for his removal from the said property under the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 and therefore there was no occasion to initiate any departmental inquiry against the petitioner on false allegations. It is further contended that since the registered sale deed was executed in favour of said Narendra Kumar with respect to the property, said to be claimed by the respondents, in fact the title was required to be established by filing a civil suit and then only to take action against the person who has illegally encroached on the land if proved. This too was not done therefore the order impugned could not have been passed against the petitioner.

2. In response to the notice of writ petition issued a return has been filed by the respondents and they have denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and objection is raised by the respondents stating that the standing orders are attracted in the establishment of respondents. Since the petitioner was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry he should have resorted to the remedy available to him by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. If a dispute is raised under the relevant Act, the question with regard to the validity of the inquiry and its reasonableness can be examined by the said competent authority under the Act and a redressal can be granted by the Labour Court. However, since the disputed facts are involved, without resorting to the remedy available under the Industrial Act, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this count. It is further contended that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and one Shri Narayan Ram was appointed as inquiry officer. The petitioner was granted assistance of one Shri G. R. Likhitkar, senior overman. However, it was specifically mentioned in the letter permitting the petitioner to take the defence assistance that Shri Likhitkar was not under the control of the respondent No. 2 and if the petitioner wanted to take assistance of the said person he was required to bring the said person in the inquiry. The petitioner could have taken assistance of a co-worker but no such application was made in this respect. It is further contended that the inquiry officer examined the witnesses and afforded the opportunity of