O R D E R

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

"a. Calling for the records of the case from the respondent corporation;

b. Calling for the records of the proceedings against respondent No.3, 4 and 5;

c. Quash the departmental proceedings held ex-parte against the petitioner;

d. Quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2007 dismissing the petitioner from service;

e. Direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full benefits;

f. Direct initiation of criminal case and departmental proceedings against respondents No.3, 4 and 5..."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the permanent post of Junior Salesman in the respondent No. l corporation on 19th August 1991 and had served the said corporation up to the date of his dismissal from service vide impugned order dated 30th November 2007. During his tenure of more than 16 years the petitioner was posted at Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL, in short) Shops situated at Chandni Chowk, Vishnu Garden, South Patel Nagar and Rajinder Nagar and lastly at Vasant Vihar, Delhi.

3. It is submitted that the respondent corporation issued Memorandum of Charge to the petitioner on 23rd May 2001 under Rule 3 of CCS (CCA) Rules read with Rule 11.1 of the Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. Staff Service Rules, 1986. Thereafter, vide notice dated 7th August 2001 the Enquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the EO" in short) directed the petitioner to appear before him on 17th August 2001.

4. It is submitted that on 17th August 2001, the EO directed the petitioner to nominate his defense Assistant by 27th August 2001, to examine the documents by 30th August 2001, to submit the list of defense documents, and to submit the list of defense witnesses by 10th September 2001. The EO further directed the petitioner to intimate the compliance of the above said directions to him by 3rd September 2001. It is submitted that the above said directions itself are illegal and violative of principles of natural justice since the petitioner was not in a position to take the abovesaid steps without first nominating the legal assistant and taking his help on its approval.

5. It is submitted that vide letter dated 23rd August 2001, the petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority and to the EO to stay the departmental proceedings till the decision of the pending criminal case. However, the said requests were not acceded to despite several representations made in this regard. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 and 2 did not stay the proceedings and concluded the entire hearing on one date i.e. on 22nd October 2001 and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the said report was also forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 6th December 2001, directing the petitioner to make representation on the said report within 15 days. In the interregnum, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, wherein interim order was passed in his favour. Upon vacation of the interim order, the respondent corporation passed the impugned order on 30th November 2007, dismissing the petitioner from service.

6. It is submitted that neither the Respondent No. l nor the Respondent No.2 invited any representation on the findings nor the disciplinary authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to submit his view on the report nor the disciplinary authority served any notice on the petitioner intimating him the action proposed to be taken inviting his views therefore the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is thus illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. It is thus submitted that the impugned order of dismissal passed by the respondent on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed in viola