KULDEEP SINGH Vs. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge dated 30.09.2009 and the appellate order dated 20.02.2010, confirming that order.

(2.) THE petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal pursuant to an inquiry into the charges levelled against him. The Memorandum of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 11.03.2008. The Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed by the appointing authority - district judge, on 09.05.2008. Four Articles of Charges were alleged against the petitioner. They are extracted below:

(3.) IT is contended that the inquiry is beset with vital infirmities. It was firstly contended that the IO permitted the Presenting Officer to lead additional evidence without proper application of mind and without notifying the petitioner/delinquent employee. The second contention urged was that the IO did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 14(18) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereafter the "1965 Rules") which mandates that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the delinquent officer should be called upon to furnish his explanation in respect of the evidence led.