So far as the first ground is companycerned, it stands negatived by the recent decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakarl , inasmuch as the order of punishment is of the year 1980.
1 number furnishing of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the respondent before imposing the punishment and 2 irregularities in companyduct of the inquiry.
While the writ petition was pending, the Central Administrative Tribunal was companystituted and the writ petition was transferred to that Tribunal.
The Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, in spite of the said letters and made his recommendation on the basis of which the aforesaid penalty was imposed.
By an order dated May 30, 1980, he was companypulsorily retired from service as a measure of penalty.
This review petition came to be dismissed on July 9, 1985, whereupon he approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
Learned companynsel, Shri H.M. Singh, agrees to the said companyrse after companysulting his client.
He filed an appeal which was dismissed on August 30, 1982.
The respondent was a Superintendent of Statistics in the Field Operations Division, National Sample Survey Organisation, Union of India the appellants herein.
Certain charges were framed against him for unauthorised absence and an inquiry held.
It appears that thereafter he filed a review before the appellate authority which is number indeed provided by the rules.
When numberices were issued in the second inquiry, they companyld number be served on the respondent.
An inquiry was held, in the first instance, which was number found to be in order by the disciplinary authority who directed a fresh inquiry.
So far as the second ground is companycerned, a few facts need be stated.
