Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that impugned order dated 03.4.2012, Annexure-1, by virtue of which major penalty has been imposed, has been passed without any enquiry.
Learned counsel has pointed out that in regard to certain charges regular enquiry was ordered and held. The enquiry culminated in passing of enquiry report dated 09.7.2009, Annexure-6. None of the charges could be proved by the presenting officer of the department. When the enquiry report was presented before the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the same and vide order dated 04.2.2011, Annexure-7, ordered de novo enquiry after serving a memo on the petitioner.
It has been pleaded that the decision to order de novo enquiry was taken, without giving any hearing to the petitioner.
On the second count, it has been contended that in the de novo enquiry, there was no presenting officer nor any evidence was led or opportunity given. Enquiry report, Annexure-11, dated 17.8.2011 has been furnished indicting the petitioner.
Essentially, the ground of challenge is that without holding any meaningful enquiry, major penalty has been imposed.
On going through the document, Annexure-11, per se learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, Sri N.C. Mehrotra has not been able to dispute the contention made on behalf of the petitioner.
Let a short affidavit be filed as to whether any enquiry was held or not in compliance of order dated 04.2.2011 (Annexure-7) directing holding of de novo enquiry.
List on 09.8.2012.
Order Date :- 6.8.2012 A.Nigam