Analyzing the provisions of above rule, the Division Bench has held that the rule requires that an employee must either be served in person or alternatively, it must be despatched to him by registered post. Proviso also make a provision for effecting service through publication. Concededly the service was effected on the wife of the appellant, which cannot be treated as service on personal of the appellant. Even the charge sheet and the list of witnesses were also not personally served on the appellant but on his brother. This fact would clearly emerge from the inquiry proceedings itself. On the basis of the service, as noticed in the inquiry proceedings, the exparte proceedings were held against the appellant and he was found guilty of the charge. The appellant was then dismissed from service. In the case of Simarjit Singh (supra), the impugned order passed in revision was taken to have been served on the employee who was petitioner in the writ petition and he was given liberty to avail the remedy on the basis of order so served on him. In other words, the petitioner therein was given liberty to challenge the order passed in revision, against which he had complained of having not been served on him.
