JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal No.1505 of 2022 has been filed by the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation ("ONGC" for short) aggrieved by the oral judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009. 2. By the aforesaid judgment in a petition filed by the respondent in this appeal wherein, respondent had challenged the decision of the Chief Commissioner closing the file by an order dated 18.02.2008 and had also challenged the order of penalty dated 14.05.2008 removing the respondent herein from service, the learned Single Judge by the oral judgment dated 19.09.2022 set aside the order of removal respondent No.1 from service, directed the appellant - corporation to reinstate the respondent on the original post and issued consequential directions. 3. Letters Patent Appeal No.79 of 2024 is filed by the party- in-person, respondent No.1 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1505 of 2022 by which her petition challenging the order of the Chief Commissioner dated 12.08.2008 was disposed of in light of the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 dated 19.09.2022. 4. For the purpose of this order, we would refer to the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.1505 of 2022. 4.1. The respondent who has appeared as party-in-person, was appointed on 31.07.2001 as a Junior Technical Assistant (Geology) on term basis for a period of 4 years and thereafter on satisfactory performance, continued as a Field Operator (Geology) on tenure basis. It was the case of the petitioner in the petition filed before this Court that as a lady employee duties assigned to her which included collection of samples of sand, coal, clay etc. and moulding the plastic involved putting of thumb pressure which, as a result of her physical disability, she was not in a capacity to perform. According to the respondent - original petitioner, she had addressed a communication dated 25.10.2006 to the General Manager of the ONGC requesting for change of job functions on account of medical problem. The case of the petitioner was that though this application was received by the corporation, her request for change of job was not being entertained as a result of which, she felt discriminated. It was her case that she had a medical certificate indicating that looking to the clinico-radiological condition, the Chief Medical Officer, Vadodara had advised the employer to modify the working pattern. 4.2. It was her case that she had a medical certificate indicating that looking to the clinico-radiological condition, the Chief Medical Officer, Vadodara had advised the employer to modify the working pattern. 4.2. The case of the corporation was that no such application was received through the General Manager (HR) and the respondent refused to appear before the Medical Board so that her injuries could be assessed. The corporation's case further was that she refused to accept work assignment and other official communications as a result of this, she was issued a charge-sheet wherein, several charges were imputed against her including the one which indicated that she had misrepresented facts to the extent that she had stated that she had given an application, which in fact was not received. That she refused to appear before the Medical Board. That she refused to accept work assignment and other official communications. After a detailed inquiry, by an order dated 14.05.2008, she was removed from service. When challenged before this Court, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order, directed reinstatement and issued the directions which we have briefly mentioned in the earlier part of this order. 5. Learned senior counsel Mr. R. R. Marshall appearing with learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for the appellants would submit that the application dated 25.10.2006 was never received by the corporation. Taking us to the order of the learned Single Judge, he would submit that though on 05.02.2007 and 21.02.2007 communications were sent for the respondent - original petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, she failed to do so. As a result thereof, a charge-sheet was issued and after a fulfledged inquiry where the necessary documents were supplied, by the order of penalty dated 14.05.2008 she was removed from service. 5.1. Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshall would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error inasmuch as an observation was made that the corporation had acted as a catalyst in fanning the ego of the respondent and despite a lady employee having made out a case by production of a certificate of her disability, she was "witch hunted" to quote the observations of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of penalty of removal. 5.2. Learned senior counsel Mr. 5.2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Marshall would submit that from the inquiry officer's report it is evident that the departmental proceedings were carried out in accordance with the principles of natural justice where, she did not participate and therefore, it is now not open for her to plead that, the application dated 25.10.2006 was in fact received or that the dispatch register was tampered with. He would submit that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to have re-appreciated the findings of fact arrived at in a full-fledged departmental inquiry. Even on the aspect of proportionality of punishment, the inquiry officer having found that there was an unjustified absence on her part, the Court should have been loathe in interfering with the order of penalty. In support of his submissions, he would rely on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others versus Chitra Venkata Rao reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 . 6. Ms. Abhilashaben Joshi, who has appeared as party-in- person, in response to the arguments of the learned senior counsel Mr. R. R. Marshall would submit that the case that the application dated 25.10.2006 was in fact received by the authorities was evident from the fact that the dispatch register was tampered with. She would rely on an interim order passed by this Court on 11.10.2018 wherein, the observations made by the learned Single Judge supported her case that there was tampering with the official document which amounted to a serious offence which had been done in order to deprive the employee of her job. Despite the direction in the order to record a police complaint, the authorities were turning a deaf ear to the request of the respondent. She would also rely upon an affidavit tendered to this Court on 08.04.2023 to submit that the departmental proceedings were completely conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. She would submit that she could have been a beneficiary of an order of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 14475 of 2016 where she was entitled to be given the benefit of regularization with arrears. She would submit that she could have been a beneficiary of an order of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 14475 of 2016 where she was entitled to be given the benefit of regularization with arrears. In the affidavit, she would place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/S Prestige Lights Limited versus State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to conduct of the parties in the litigation. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of K.D.Sharma versus Steel Authorities of India Limited & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 with regard to the disclosure of the relevant material. She would submit that having acquired disability, removal from service had rendered her jobless for over 16 years which reflected the arbitrariness of the corporation in recognizing her right to be protected and the removal from service was therefore illegal. An affidavit-in-reply in the appeal was also filed on 03.04.2024. The party-in-person read out before us paragraph 6 of the affidavit so filed indicating the procedural violation in the departmental inquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopal and Ors versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632 also relying on the decision in the case of Mr. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) versus Union of India reported in AIR 2018 SC (Supp) 1841 with regard to right of privacy. She would also rely upon the contents of the order dated 20.01.2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2018. She would submit that repeated request to allot desk work rather than the hard-work of grinding and polishing of pellets was her right in light of her disability. 7. We note a few facts before delving into the decision of learned Single Judge. A brief history of dates would indicate that after giving the application for being examined and a request being made purportedly to allot work other than the work that she was undertaking, the corporation had on two occasions requested the respondent to appear before the Medical Board so that her injury can be assessed. She failed to respond. As a result of which, by the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2007 certain charges were imputed against her. She failed to respond. As a result of which, by the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2007 certain charges were imputed against her. Perusal of the charges would indicate that it was the case of the corporation that since the application dated 25.10.2006 was never received, the respondent had misrepresented her facts, that she had refused to appear before the Medical Board and also refused to accept work assignment and other communications. 8. Perusal of the inquiry officer’s report would indicate that the respondent through her letters dated 07.08.2007 and 08.08.2007 denied the charges. The inquiry officer’s report when perused would reveal that several witnesses were examined in the course of assessment of evidence in respect of each article of charge and the inquiry officer on the assignment of evidence found that the application dated 25.10.2006 was never forwarded and it was established that she did not approach any of the controlling officers. On the charge of refusing to appear before the Medical officer on two occasions, the inquiry officer found that before a Medical Board constituted of three members, she did not appear. The learned party-in-person had disputed the constitution of the Medical Board inasmuch as it was her submission that one of the members of the committee was not qualified enough. However, the inquiry officer found that since the committee was specially constituted to examine the case of the charged officer, i.e. the respondent, there was no plausible reason for the respondent not to appear before the committee without any justification. On the charges with regard to failing to respond to the communications and refusing to accept work, we find from the finding of the inquiry officer based on appreciation of evidence that the inquiry officer in his reasons held as under:- "15-Findings on each article of charge and reasons there for:- The above mentioned facts and circumstances have thus proved that Ms. Abhilasha Joshi CO misrepresented before the Chairperson WDF and also in turn before all other officers of the PGL and WOB, ONGC Ltd. Vadodara who dealt with her representations dated 18.10.2006 and 3.11.2006, the fact of her sending the representation dated 25.10.2006 to the GM(HR) through proper channel, she refused to appear on 5.2.2007 and 21.2.2007 before the Committee constituted by the Basin Manager, WOB, Vadodara for assessing the alleged injuries suffered by her while on job without any justifiable reason, she failed to respond to the Memoranda dated 13.4.2007 and 3.5.2007 issued by the Head RGL calling for her explanation on certain misconducts on her part and she refused to accept the work assignment and other official communications from Dr. M. Sharmukhappa DGM- Head Geology Lab, RGL, WOB, Vadodara on 17.5.2007 and 18.5.2007 without any justifiable reason. The said omissions and commissions on the part of Ms. Abhilasha Joshi CO reveal that she behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Public Servant and committed gross misconduct of insubordination or disobedience which was subversive to the discipline and good behaviour on her part and thereby she contravened Rule 3(j) read with sub-rules 1,7, 9(ii) and 20 of Schedule II of the ONGC, CDA Rules 1994." 9. Though it is professed by the party-in-person appearing before us that she was physically challenged and therefore, was made a victim of her circumstances, what is evident from the communication dated 18.02.2008 of the Commissioner of Disabilities is that she was not entitled to a certificate under the provisions of the Act because her disability was not in excess of 40% so as to qualify her for the benefit of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("Disabilities Act" for short). 10. Thus, the inquiry officer having found, based on the analysis of the evidence produced before him and in absence of any rebuttal on the part of the respondent except through her written defence, we would agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. R. Marshall appearing for the appellants that we cannot sit in judgment over the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. 11. R. R. Marshall appearing for the appellants that we cannot sit in judgment over the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer. 11. In light of this, we need to consider whether the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to finding of his own and observing that “in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner at the initial stage had produced a certificate about her disability at the time of application and that too of a doctor who was on the panel of ONGC…...Hence, the very ground to initiate inquiry on this point (sic) not available to the respondent corporation”. 12. We cannot be moved by the order of the learned Single Judge which the party-in-person has quoted with regard to the filing of a criminal complaint on the question of tampering with the register and the consequential reflection of that very order in the reasoning set out by the learned Single Judge in para 12 of his oral judgment. What we note is that the interim order dated 11.10.2018 which was pressed into service by the party- in-person was even reversed in an appeal. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the affidavits-in-reply and contents which the party-in-person has read before us, the submissions, in our opinion would not merit any significance. With great respect to the learned Single Judge, the branding of the departmental proceedings which met its logical end as “of fact finding mission with the per-determined mind” was unwarranted. Having observed that the conduct of the respondent petitioner was against service ethics, in our opinion the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the order of penalty that he did. We therefore, find merit in the appeal. 13. In light of holding that when a fact finding inquiry in a departmental proceeding was held, the submissions in the nature of extraneous circumstances would not weigh with us in supporting the stand of the learned party-in-person, Letters Patent Appeal No.1505 of 2022 is allowed and the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 14. That brings us to the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in a subsequent petition filed by the party-in-person where she had prayed for declaring the decision of the Chief Commissioner under the Disabilities Act by the order of 12.08.2008 as arbitrary and unjust. 14. That brings us to the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in a subsequent petition filed by the party-in-person where she had prayed for declaring the decision of the Chief Commissioner under the Disabilities Act by the order of 12.08.2008 as arbitrary and unjust. The Commissioner found that the request for alternative employment was not justified and the complaint of the original petitioner who is the appellant before us was not entertained. The learned Single Judge by the order of even date found that in light of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 no separate order was required in the petition so as to quash the order of the Chief Commissioner. The learned party-in-person would submit through her written submissions tendered before us today, reiterating her submissions that she made in the appeal of the corporation, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No.1505 of 2022. She would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that when initially this Court had entertained the petition by an order dated 09.05.2008, after an extensive reproduction of Section 47 of the Act, notice was issued. She was entitled to the protection under Section 47 of the Act which was the sole repository of non-discrimination against person with disability. She would submit that the Vishaka Guidelines and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women predicates that a non-hostile working environment is the basic limb of dignified employment. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: (i) Bhagwan Das & Anr. Versus Punjab State Electricity Board reported in (2008) 1 SCC 579 . (ii) Kunal Singh Versus Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524 . (iii) Geetaben Ratilal Patel Versus District Primary Education reported in AIR 2013 SC 3092 . (iv) Kumar Bharat Prasad Narain Singh Versus Airport Authority of India reported in 2005 (V) AD Del 513. (v) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation REP By its Managing Directors and Ors Versus B. S Reddy reported in 2017 ALL SCR 1413. (vi) Union of India Versus Pramod Sadashiv Thakre reported in 2012 (2) AIIMR 468, 2012 (1) MahLJ 738. (vii) Dilbag Singh Versus DTC reported in 123 (2005) DLT 318, DTC 2005 (107) FLR 1106. (viii) Sunil Kumar Bhaitha Versus Union of India reported in 2014 SCC Online Guj 14150. 15. (vi) Union of India Versus Pramod Sadashiv Thakre reported in 2012 (2) AIIMR 468, 2012 (1) MahLJ 738. (vii) Dilbag Singh Versus DTC reported in 123 (2005) DLT 318, DTC 2005 (107) FLR 1106. (viii) Sunil Kumar Bhaitha Versus Union of India reported in 2014 SCC Online Guj 14150. 15. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that having held in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 in favour of the appellant of the present appeal, he thought it fit not to interfere with the order of the Chief Commissioner of Disabilities. 16. As we have set out in the earlier part of this order, having upset the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2022 in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 and upholding the order of dismissal / removal, we need to examine the controversy in the petition independently in light of the fact that the order dated 19.09.2022 by which the learned Single Judge directed reinstatement of the appellant of this appeal, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No.79 of 2024 is set aside. 17. Perusal of the order of the Chief Commissioner would indicate that despite a validly constituted Medical Board / Committee by the employer where the employee was requested to appear, she did not appear. The Chief Commissioner has also observed that the Medical Board at the district hospital had opined that she was suffering from Metacarpo - Phalangeal of Thumb Arthritis which has resulted in 15% disability. This has to be appreciated in light of the communication dated 18.02.2008 which we have referred to wherein the competent authority under the Disabilities Act has also refused to extend the benefits of the Act on the ground that the extent of disability is not 40% or more. Adverting to the provisions of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, the Commissioner found that though Medical Board was constituted in accordance with the Office Order No.62 of 2006, in the opinion of the Commissioner in failing to appear before the Medical Board she lost her chance which was essential for taking a decision with regard to the change of job. Merely because the Medical Board did not have a Civil Surgeon, in the opinion of the Commissioner did not make the constitution of the Board illegal. Merely because the Medical Board did not have a Civil Surgeon, in the opinion of the Commissioner did not make the constitution of the Board illegal. In fact, it will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the final findings of the Commissioner of Disabilities. Paragraph 15, 16 & 17 thereof read as under :- "15. It can also be seen that though there has been some delay in constitution of the Medical board (which is understandable as the complaint was not in regular employment & it may have taken some time for the respondent to take decision), the initial actions of the respondents do not indicate any negative sentiments/ prejudice towards the complainant. She has been allowed to work only on collection & sorting of the sample for over 5 months : and paid salary for the same, 't is only after the complainant refused to appear before the Medical board and apparently adopted a high handed attitude like asking her seniors for detailed instructions in writing (as in letter dated 2.2.07) & harping about enquiry from National Commission for Women, that they have served her with memo for her actions (the first being memo dated 13.4.2007). Further as the complainant failed to comply with the procedural formalities required for change of job, the respondent cannot be faulted for asking her to start working on polishing & grinding machine after a period of 5 months. 16. Thus it can be seen that the respondents have been reasonably accommodating and it is complainant's own actions that precipitated initiation of disciplinary action against her or resulted in non provision of alternative job. 17. In light of the above, the prayers of the complainant for provision of alternate job/salary after declaring Medical Board constituted by the respondents as illegal or directing the Management not to take action against her for not discharging her duties etc. cannot be upheld and the case is thereby dismissed." 18. Having reversed the findings of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.780 of 2009 and even otherwise having independently undertaken an exercise of ascertaining the veracity of the order dated 18.02.2008 of the Commissioner of Disabilities, we independently hold that the petition, namely, Special Civil Application No.2328 of 2009 was misconceived. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 19. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 19. In view of the order passed in the main matter, connected Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.