IKRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant while in service was charge sheeted and regular departmental proceedings was initiated against him. 29 prosecution witnesses were cited in the list of witnesses. However, only 26 were examined by the Enquiry Officer and so far the remaining prosecution witnesses are concerned it was observed by the Enquiry Officer as under -

(2.) On the basis of evidence on record the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 10.7.2000 held the appellant not guilty. When the report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority an order was passed on 11.08.2000 (communicated to the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 16.8.2000), inter alia, mentioning therein that the enquiry report had been given without recording statements of three main witnesses to which reference has been made in the enquiry report. According to the Disciplinary Authority, the report was not acceptable as it was incomplete in the sense that entire evidence has not been recorded. Further enquiry was ordered by recording the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses.

(3.) When the Enquiry Officer summoned the appellant vide communication dated 18.08.2000 informing the appellant that he had been ordered lor conducting further enquiry and the appellant was required to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 28.08.2000, he challenged the said order of the Enquiry Officer by way of Writ Petition (C) 586/2001. By order dated 2.2.2001 the learned Single Judge stayed further proceedings in the enquiry. However, the said order was vacated by the impugned order dated 30.1.2002. Hence, the present appeal. It may be observed here that the writ petition is still pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge.