show-cause thus cannot be faulted. While referring to page 47 of the writ application it is submitted that the document captioned statement of allegations is in fact a statement in the form of report. The same does not constitute a charge and the petitioner was only charged, on the basis of the allegations as set-forth in the said statement, Ms. Banerjee submits that the writ petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing and to defend. The writ petitioner duly participated in the enquiry proceedings, filed written statement, cross-examined the management witnesses, and was duly supplied with the copy of the enquiry report. The writ petitioner also responded to the enquiry report. In course of the enquiry proceedings not once, had the petitioner questioned the chargesheet on the ground of non-issuance of the showcause. She says that there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice. The enquiry proceedings cannot stand vitiated, simply because he has not been given an opportunity of show-cause. The points as canvassed on behalf of the writ petitioner in this writ application, had never been raised by the petitioner either before the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority. The challenge to the finding of convince, forming basis of punishment was also not raised before the Appellate Authority. The charges had been proved, there are sufficient grounds to hold the petitioner guilty. This Hon’ble Court at this belated stage
