JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner laying a challenge to the Inquiry Report dated 09.08.2006; order of dismissal dated 29.08.2006; and order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.12.2006 by which the appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected.

2. Factual narrative to the extent necessary and as brought out in the writ petition is that at the relevant time Petitioner was working as a Station Master with National Bal Bhawan (‘NBB’), a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, constituted to provide opportunity to the children in education and creative fields. The Society is fully owned and controlled by the Government of India.

3. Smt. Madhu Pant/Respondent No.4 was working as a Director in 2004 with NBB and was due to superannuate on 31.08.2004. Respondents No.1 and 2 were considering her case for extension of service. Petitioner who was the General Secretary of NBB Staff Welfare Association submitted a representation dated 27.08.2004 to the Chairperson, NBB requesting him not to grant extension to Respondent No.4 and proceed with the pending departmental inquiry against Respondent No.4, for which she was under suspension. Basis this representation, Respondent No.4 was not granted extension, though she was given contractual appointment for one year or till such time regular appointment was made. Staff Welfare Association filed writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(C) No.4830/2005 seeking quashing of Respondent No.4’s appointment order dated 01.09.2004 in public interest. Petitioner was Petitioner No.2 in the said writ petition and Respondent No.4 was impleaded as Respondent No.2.

4. According to the Petitioner, after this Respondent No.4 became inimical and biased against him and devised ways to implicate him in a false case. The very complaint against Respondent No.4 became the subject matter of inquiry and the impugned charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “CCS Rules”) under the direction and aegis of Respondent No.4 as a Disciplinary Authority.

5. The departmental inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer (‘IO’) in violation of laid down procedure under the CCS Rules and violation of principles of natural justice. Under the influence of Respondent No.4, the inquiry was completed without giving the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence and prove his defence. IO submitted his Report dated

09.08.2006, wherein Article-I of the charge was held as ‘proved’, while Article-II of the charge was ‘partially proved’. On receiving the inquiry report Petitioner gave a representation on 26.08.2006, but without applying her mind to the same and in a hurry to punish the Petitioner before her retirement, Respondent No.4 imposed the harshest and disproportionate punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ on 29.08.2006. On receiving the penalty order, Petitioner submitted the statutory appeal before Respondent No.3 on 13.10.2006, which was rejected by an unreasoned and non-speaking order.

6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inquiry proceedings and resultant penalty order stand vitiated on ground of bias of Respondent No.4 and deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. It is urged that short of her retirement, Respondent No.4’s case was under consideration for extension beyond her date of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2004. Acting in the capacity of General Secretary of the Staff Welfare Association, Petitioner signed on a complaint made against Respondent No.4 to Ram Saran Joshi, Chairperson, NBB, which is evident from the ‘subject’ of the complaint ‘Reward to charge sheeted Director by Extending her service period (After retirement on 31.08.2004) in utter disregard of the orders dated 09.02.2004 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for Inquiry into her charges by Arbitrator’. In the complaint, Petitioner brought forth the pending disci