JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

Heard through Video Conferencing

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. Facts are taken from WP. No. 17190/2014.

3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P/1) wherein certain allegations of impropriety/misconduct were made against him. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P/3) and denied the charges in toto. He also submitted his explanation in the said reply. The respondents, in turn, passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2014 and inflicted a punishment of recovery on the petitioner. The petitioner directly assailed this order in this petition.

4. Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the allegations made against him are factual in nature and the same are denied by him, in view of principles of natural justice ingrained in Rule 16 of M.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1966 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Others (2001) 9 SCC 180, the respondents were required to consider the reply and conduct an en