instance only the enquiry was prolonged. The petitioner failed to avail opportunity of engaging a co-worker/member of the workers union who is not suspended and who is not engaged in too many cases. On the other hand, in order to prolong the proceedings the petitioner played delay tactics. Ultimately, Inquiring Authority, in order to give full opportunity to the petitioner, reopened the enquiry and sought cooperation in the enquiry proceedings from the stage of cross examination. However, the same has not been availed by the petitioner, therefore, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the enquiry proceedings as well as in the punishment order. At every stage principle of natural justice has been followed and complied. It was further submitted that even certain procedures have not been adhered, that does not vitiate enquiry proceedings. In support of this contention, the respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India vs. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 S.C. 882 (Paragraph 10). Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Naravade 2005 (3) SCC 134 , to point out use of abusive language against a superior officer in presence of subordinate cannot be termed as an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment than dismissal in absence of any extenuating factor. It was contended that behaviour of the petitioner towards his superior while discharging the duties of the post held by him, amounts to misconduct, therefore, imposing penalty of dismissal cannot be interfered by this Court. 10) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
