1. The appellant/writ petitioner before us was working as a Photographer with the respondent and was entrusted with the task of preparing xerox copies for the Scholars on payment, besides preparing xerox copies for official purposes for different units of the respondent. The appellant was served with the following Articles of Charges:

Article 1

Negligence of DutyIt has brought to the notice of authorities that the meters installed in the photocopier machines in the organization showing reading of number of pages photocopied have been tampered with in such a way to show less than actually it should show as per the photocopying work was done. The reading of the said meters which are visible on the top of the machines do not tally with the memory meters which are fitted inside the machines. Shri B.K.Arya, Photographer, who was in charge of the work of photocopying the documents has never intimated to the authorities of this tampering thereby causing to be suspected of his involvement in tampering the meters for personal benefits.

Article 2

The tampering of meters have caused financial loss to the institution. Hence, Shri P.K. Gupta is charged with negligence of duty thereby causing financial loss to the institution.

Article 3

Non-realization of money against photocopy workIt has been brought to the notice of authorities that in respect of photocopy work done for the scholars visiting the Library there are cases in which the payment for the photocopy work has not been either realized or deposited with the cashier for the sake of personal benefit, even after carrying out the work thereby causing financial loss to the institution.

2. The Inquiry Officer held the charges to be proved, vide report dated 23.2.2005. Pursuant to the aforesaid report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 6.8.2007 imposed penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years upon the appellant with directions that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of penalty and on the expiry of period of penalty, the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He also filed WP (C) No. 3788/2008 challenging the penalty imposed upon him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the departmental appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.5.2008. The appellant then withdrew WP(C) No. 3788/2008 with liberty to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Another writ petition being WP(C) LPA No. 566/08 No. 5911/2008 was then filed by him challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 18.8.2008 dismissed the writ petition.

3. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

4. We find from a perusal of the writ petition that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were challenged by the appellant primarily on two grounds; the first ground being that he had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the second ground taken in the writ petition was that there was no evidence to establish the charges served upon the appellant.

5. We have carefully examined the impugned order dated 18.8.2008. We find that neither of these two important plea taken by the appellant have been considered by the learned Single Judge. We also find from a perusal of the inquiry report that some of the witnesses were actually not produced for the cross-examination. This aspect has obviously escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge, since he observed that the appellant was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on behalf of the department. We also find that there is no consideration of the plea of the appellant that there was no evidence produced by the department to sustain the charges against him.

6. In view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for examining the aforesaid two pleas of the appellant on the basis of the material available on record.

7. The impugned order dated 18.8.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for passing an appropriate order after considering the pleas of the appellant/writ petitioner that (i) he was denied opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses produced by the department; and (ii) there was no evidence produced by the department on the basis of which charges against him can be said to have been established.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 29th April, 2013 for direction.

Considering that the writ petition came to be filed about 5 years ago, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition, as far as possible, within three months of the parties appearing before him.

The appeal stands disposed of.