The court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice; reopening a closed enquiry without justification and inadequate appellate review violates procedural rights.

ORDER

Per: Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the order of the Disciplinary authority dated 13^th October, 2014 (Annexure “A-1”).

b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13^th April, 2015 (Annexure “A-2)”.

c) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant in service with full service benefits including continuity of service, full back wages, seniority, promotion and all other admissible services benefits;

d) Such other and further orders be passed as the facts and circumstances of the case may require;

e) Costs of this Application be provided for.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21/27/08/2004 advertisement issued in the Employment News for filling up the post of Art Designer in the office of Development Commissioner Handloom. The applicant applied pursuant to the said Advertisement enclosing all relevant documents and the applicant was called for interview after due scrutiny of application.

2.1. On 03.09.2004, the applicant was issued an appointment letter and was appointed on the post of Art Designer in the office of Respondent No. 3.

2.2. Before the applicant actually joined the said post of Art Designer, she has received an intimation on 10.02.2005 from the respondents intimating her that her appointment to the post of Art Designer is withheld until further orders by the Competent Authority.

2.3. Further, letter dated 16.08.2005 was received from the respondents and the applicant was allowed to join duty and applicant was directed to report for duty at the Weavers Service Centre, Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

2.4. On 22.08.2005, the applicant gave her acceptance letter to the respondents accepting the offer of appointment and joined duty at the Weavers Service Centre, West Zone, at Raigarh.

2.5. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006 was issued by the respondents intimating that show cause why her service should not be cancelled for submission of alleged fictious experience certificate.

2.6. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the applicant on 29.01.2006 and thereafter, no further communication/order was received to the applicant. However, she was orally informed that her explanation has been accepted and the matter has been closed.

2.7. Thereafter, memorandum dated 07.04.2008 was issued by the respondent no. 3 in which it has been stated that her probation period of two years is completed on 28.08.2007 successfully and applicant was allowed to continue on the said post on a long-term basis.

2.8. Thereafter, memorandum dated 02.11.2011 was issued from the office of respondent no. 2 informing that a complaint has been received to Director, West Zone in Weavers’ Service Centre, Mumbai on 31.08.2005 stating that the applicant was selected for the post of Art Designer does not have any work experience and submitted work experience certificate even though she has never worked in any organization, thereby misleading the department and depriving the genuine & experienced candida