retirement from service, came to be imposed upon the petitioner, contended that before imposition of penalty, no opportunity of filing representation ever came to be afforded to the petitioner as such, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Lastly, while making this court peruse the conclusion of Inquiry Report, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no reasoning ever came to be adduced on record, while holding the petitioner guilty of articles of charge Nos. I and II He submitted that record clearly reveals that after initiation of disciplinary proceedings, record with regard to issuance of NOC was audited by Audit Officer and there was no report, if any, of Audit Officer, with regard to discrepancy, if any, on the part of the petitioner, with regard to issuance of NOC, despite there being liability of a person concerned, to pay the road tax. He further submitted that otherwise also, NOC, which is the subject matter of the article of charge No. I, was withdrawn within a period of four days of issuance and no liability if any of the person, to whom NOC was issued was found. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is ample evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that cheques/demand drafts allegedly deposited late, were actually not received by the petitioner, because, at that time, seat in question was being dealt by some other employee.
