Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the order dated 15.04.2015 in O.A.No.798/2012 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Camp Indore seeking following reliefs:

7. (a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents;

(b) to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P/18) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.798/2012 preferred by the petitioner by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(c) allow this petition with costs;

(d) pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to grant relief to the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of skilled worker-I on 15.07.1994 and discharged his duties sincerely, diligently and to best of his abilities on the post of Technician-I. While he was on leave from 26.07.2010 to 02.08.2010, a false and frivolous complaint was made by one Alok Sharma on 21.07.2010 which came to be received in the office of the respondent no.3 on 29.07.2010 along with another complaint made on similar line by one Ashok Kumar Sharma, brother of said Alok Sharma alleging that certain ex-students of Indo German Tool Room i.e. Dinesh Choudhary, Gautam Rajwar and Santosh Paswan were demanding a sum of Rs.40,000/- from them under duress and threat administered to them. Upon this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by respondent no.3 which submitted its report on 30.07.2010. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. On 05.08.2010 the respondent no.3 summoned the petitioner through one R.K.Sharma in his office and coerced and forced the petitioner to tender an apology under the threat of facing dire consequences. However, soon after recovering from the threat and the coercion administered to him at the hands of respondent no.3 and said R.K.Sharma, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 09.08.2010 addressed to respondent no.3 narrating the entire circumstances under which he was forced to sign the aforesaid apology letter without there being any fault on his part. Upon this representation again a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by respondent no.3 and the committee in its report dated 26.08.2010 found the apology of the petitioner to be obtained by the respondent no.3 and said R.K.Sharma under duress. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 09.09.2010 calling upon him to offer his explanation with regard to the aforesaid incident and the petitioner in his detailed and exhaustive reply dated 15.09.2010 again narrated the entire circumstances and pleaded his innocence in the matter. The reply of the petitioner did not find favour of the respondent no.3, who in turn has issued the petitioner a charge sheet dated 29.09.2010 leveling false and frivolous charges of demand illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- from one Dinesh Choudhary through Gautam Rajwar in the presence of Santosh Paswan on 17.07.2010 and turning hostile after submitting his apology on 05.08.2010 and denying the same by subsequent representation dated 09.08.2010 thereby violating the provisions of Indo German Tool Room Model (Conduct) Rules, 1993.

3. The petitioner submitted his tentative reply to the aforesaid charge sheet on 19.10.2010 inasmuch as the petitioner was not supplied the requisite documents along with the charge sheet, even the charge sheet was not containing any imputation of misconduct, list of documents on the basis of which the charge leveled agai