JAI KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 5/10/2006 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the respondent no.2 in a regular departmental enquiry initiated against him as after receiving the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent no.2) inflicted punishment of dismissal of service vide order dtd. 10/11/2008 (Annexure-P/18).

(2.) The respondents have filed its reply and denied the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service as charges levelled against him have been found proved. It is also stated in the reply that considering the charges, i.e. irregularity and financial embezzlement, punishment of dismissal from service is proper and adequate. As per the respondents, in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference or judicial review in the order of Disciplinary authority is very limited. The proceedings of departmental enquiry can be interfered with on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in a decision making process or the punishment is interfered with, when it is not in consonance with the charges levelled. Here, in this case, according to the respondents, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in the decision making process and punishment of dismissal is also an adequate punishment as charges of irregularity and financial embezzlement have been proved and, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Before deciding the controversy involved in the matter, the necessary facts in brief are required to be mentioned which are as under:-