Management, and to satisfy himself, the petitioner directed the Management to produce the original documents pertaining to the domestic enquiry, but in spite of a clear direction issued on 8.2.2016 to that effect, no original documents were produced and rather the Management on 18.3.2016 stated in writing that such original documents were not traceable. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner while exercising his judicial duty was well within his authority under Rule 39, referred to above, to have acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and it was the Management that failed to adduce the original evidence, whereafter the award was rendered. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that by no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be said to have been negligent or reckless in the performance of his duties, nor was there any lack of bona fides so as to assume partiality or bias on the part of the petitioner in performing his judicial duties. It was after full application of mind and after following the due procedure that the petitioner proceeded to deliver the award. These aspects have been totally overlooked while issuing the charge memo and a totally incorrect assumption has been made of judicial misconduct and mala fides on the part of the petitioner, and such charges imputed not being borne out from the material on record, there was no occasion to have issued the charge memo at all.
