1. Seeking exception to an order dated 15.4.2015 passed by the learned Writ Court in W. P. No. 2167/2013, this appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Appellant was working as a Director in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department. It is said that he was appointed on 29.5.1982 as an Assistant Surgeon and on the basis of his excellent service, was promoted from time to time and finally, became the Director, Public Health and Family Welfare Department on 2.12.1998. On account of certain income tax raid conducted and based on certain adverse report submitted by the Income Tax Department, appellant was compulsorily retired on 10.12.2007. This retirement was challenged in W.P. No. 386/2008 and a learned Single Bench of this Court had found that as the compulsory retirement was by way of punishment, was not in public interest, the petition was allowed. Matter went to a Division Bench in an appeal filed and in W.A. No.134/2009 this Court quashed the order of Compulsory retirement vide judgment dated 23.7.2009, however, liberty was granted to the department to proceed in accordance with law. It is said that the charge sheet in question which culminated into the impugned action, was issued to the appellant under Rule 14 of M.P. C.C.S. (CCA) Rules on 28.6.2009. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a enquiry. The same was conducted by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, who submitted his report and based on the same vide order dated 2.4.2013 punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. Initially appellant challenged the same in W. P. No. 7618/2013 but withdrew it with liberty to file an appeal under Rule 23 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Appeal preferred was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2013, thereafter, matter again came to this Court in a second Writ Petition i.e. W. P. No. 21670/2013. Initially finding that opportunity of showing cause before imposing the punishment is not granted, after the enquiry report was submitted the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to conduct the enquiry from the stage of submitting report, but on an appeal being filed, i.e. W.A. No. 884/2013, a Division Bench on 18.11.2014, remanded the matter back to the Writ Court for deciding all the grounds raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, by the impugned order as all the questions with regard to challenge to the Departmental Enquiry have been negated and the Writ Court having directed the departmental authorities to proceed in the matter from the stage of furnishing of the enquiry report in accordance to the Discipline and Appeal Rules, this appeal has been filed.

3. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had challenged the action initiated against him and the termination order on the following grounds :-

(a) The charge sheet was vague and incapable of being understood;

(b) Documents as indicated in the charge sheet and necessary for defending the appellant and submitting his defence was not supplied and therefore, proceeding with the departmental enquiry without supplying these documents is illegal;

(c) Essential witnesses for establishing charge No.2 and 3 were not called;

(d) The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is only against charge No.1. No specific finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to Charge No.2 and 3 and the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse;

(e) Without supplying copy of the enquiry report the decision for dismissal was taken. No second show cause notice was issued and the appellant was apprised of the enquiry report being submitted from Newspaper report. As the punishment order has been imposed after considering the past service record of the appellant without notice to him and therefore, consideration of the past record without notice is unsustainable.

4. Shri Siddharth Gupta, took us through t