JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Award of the labour Court dated 26.7.2004 published on 17.2.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Adjudication Case No. 100 of 2002 has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition whereby the termination order passed against the respondent No. 1 has been set aside with a direction for reinstatement as well as payment of back wages. 2. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner for having disobeyed the command of the superior officers to report for duty on 6.2.1997. An explanation of the employee that he had to attend the Court Case for which he sought proper permission from the higher officer was not accepted by the respondents. The enquiry was initiated against the respondent No. 1 which concluded in the order of removal from service. The order was questioned in the labour Court after reference to the same was made by the State Government. Labour Court in its order after hearing the parties found that the enquiry in accordance with the Rules was not conducted. It has further been observed that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Case set out by the petitioner is that an enquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 1 and the witnesses were examined in support of the allegations levelled. It was found that the respondent No. 1 absented himself from the duty on 6.2.1997 on the pretext that he had to attend a case on 6.2.1997. Despite direction by the superior officers he refused to attend his duty on the said date. All the safeguards as provided in the Rules have been complied with by giving adequate opportunity to the respondent No. 1 in this behalf. It is stated that the show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 who replied the same. The said explanation was not found to be satisfactory and consequently he was removed from service. 5. In order to appreciate the stand of the respondents it is relevant to mention that the Corporation had framed Rules called UPSRTC Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulations 1981 (hereinafter referred as Regulations), of which Regulation 63 provides the penalties which can be imposed. The said penalties have been divided into major and minor penalties. Removal from service is categorised as major penalty. The said penalties have been divided into major and minor penalties. Removal from service is categorised as major penalty. Regulation 64 provides the procedure for awarding the major penalties. The following requirements are to be followed before imposing the major penalties viz. : (a) ground on which the action is proposed to be taken should be reduced in the form of definite charge or charges alongwith evidence proposed to be relied upon in support of the charge, (b) written statement of the delinquent officials be obtained, (c) option to be given to examine, cross-examine any witnesses, (d) proceedings containing sufficient record of evidence and the statement of findings and ground thereof be sent to the appointing authority. 6. After the receipt of the enquiry report appointing authority may pass appropriate order as he considers fit in the circumstances of the case on the basis of record and report. These procedural safeguards are required to be followed before any major punishment is required to be imposed on employee. The petitioner on their own showing have stated that after the service of the charge-sheet a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 and thereafter he submitted his reply to the same which was not found satisfactory. 7. Prima face it appears that on the proposed punishment of removal it is the appointing authority who was required to issue a show-cause notice to the respondent No. 1. The stand no where reveals that the petitioner had complied with the procedure provided under the Regulation 64. The petitioner have no where disclosed either before the labour Court or before this Court that a charge-sheet was served on the respondent No. 1 in which he was required to file a written statement. No opportunities have been given to the respondent No. 1 to file his written statement and to examine or cross-examine the witnesses who have been produced before the Court. After issuance of the show-cause notice, written statement/explanation was sought from the respondent No. 1. After having received the explanation/written statement, impugned order was passed. No opportunity of submitting written statement was given to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer nor was he asked to examine or cross-examine or produce evidence in defence in this behalf. Article 311 of the Constitution is an exception to doctrine of pleasure. After having received the explanation/written statement, impugned order was passed. No opportunity of submitting written statement was given to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer nor was he asked to examine or cross-examine or produce evidence in defence in this behalf. Article 311 of the Constitution is an exception to doctrine of pleasure. It provides that no person shall be reduced in rank, removed or dismissed unless reasonable opportunity is provided to him. The mode and manner in which proceedings are initiated against the respondent No. 1 is provided under the regulations and same has to be strictly complied with and in absence of rules/regulations then principle of natural justice is required to be followed. 8. It is settled proposition of law that an employe is entitled to protection of being given an opportunity to defend himself and must have a clear notice of charges which he is called upon to meet before the departmental inquiry commences. After he gets the notice and is given an opportunity to offer his explanation, the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the Rules governing the field and in consistent with the requirements of principles of Rules of natural justice. At the end of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer appreciates the evidence, records his conclusion and submits his report to the authority concerned. This is the first stage of inquiry. On receipt of the inquiry report alongwith the recommendations, if the Enquiry Officer finds that the charges are not proved and same is agreed by the authority, nothing more is required to be done. If the report makes a finding in favour of the employee on all the charges or finds him guilty of some charges, it is the authority who is to decide provisionally as to what punishment should be imposed on the employee and it accordingly proceeds to issue a second notice in that behalf. 9. In cases, where the Enquiry Officer returns findings some of which are in favour of the employee and some against him, the authority is entitled to consider the whole matter and if it holds that some or all the charges framed against the employee are, in its opinion, prima facie established against him, then the authority has to decide as to what punishment is to be imposed and serve him a notice accordingly. 10. 10. It would, thus, be seen that the object of second notice is to enable the employee to satisfy the authority on both the counts, one that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and the other that even if the charges are held to be proved against him, the punishment proposed is unduly severe. At the second stage, the opportunity which is intended to be given to the employee is to show-cause not only against the proposed punishment but also against the finding recorded against him by the Enquiry Officer. Reasonable opportunity would mean an opportunity which is to be given to the delinquent official to explain his conduct regarding the allegations levelled against him and also includes the manner in which the proceedings have to be conducted. 11. Applying the principle to the present case, it be seen that the Enquiry Officer was required to call for a written statement from the respondent No. 1 and also provide an opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. Admittedly, no written statement was called for by the Enquiry Officer. This is the first infraction committed in observing the Regulation 64. The report of the Enquiry Officer, which does not contain the written statement of the petitioner is a record which cannot be relied upon by the appointing authority in proposing the punishment in this behalf. 12. The satisfaction of the appointing authority while proposing the order of punishment has to be based upon record submitted by the Enquiry Officer which includes the report as also the record of the proceedings on the basis of which report has been framed. Record of proceedings will include the article of charge, written statement and the affidavits and any other document relied upon by either of the parties. Since no written statement was called from the respondent No. 1, the satisfaction arrived at by the appointing authority per-se was based upon only on the report of Enquiry Officer which could not be sustained in the eyes of law. This is in my opinion would violate the principle of granting reasonable opportunity as provided by Article 311 of the Constitution as also the Rules of natural justice. 13. It may also be observed that two witnesses have been recorded in absence of the respondent No. 1. This is in my opinion would violate the principle of granting reasonable opportunity as provided by Article 311 of the Constitution as also the Rules of natural justice. 13. It may also be observed that two witnesses have been recorded in absence of the respondent No. 1. The categorical statement of the respondent No. 1 in the show-cause notice was that he did not have the information that the witnesses would be examined on 3.3.2001. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to emphasise that proper enquiry has been conducted and witnesses have been examined who have supported the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 1. Power of Court under Article 226 of the Constitution while issuing a writ of certiorari is to annul the order, quash the order passed by the inferior Court or Tribunal. The Court cannot substitute its own view or correct error in judgment. The power is restricted only in annulling any proceedings or any order passed by inferior Courts. Undoubtedly, the Court will not go into the question as to whether the Tribunal has rightly or wrongly come to a conclusion on the basis of evidence before it. In the present case there is a clear infraction of Regulation 64 and also the Rules of natural justice. Adequate opportunity has not been provided by the petitioner as stated herein above. The Court is well within its right to correct the error committed in decision making process by the petitioner. 15. On aforesaid discussion, I find no error in the judgment of the Tribunal as such no interference is called upon. In the results the writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. Costs made easy. —————