Sr. No. Date I' Orders % 11-02-2005. Present: Mr. Rajinder Nischal for the petitioner Mr. Ra,|esh Tyagi for the respondent. + WPfCl N0.2559/2QQ5 ^ CMNo.1841 /2QQB. We have perused the order passed by the Central Adjninistrattve Tribunal. Learned counsel, for the petitioner has contended that the additional documents, which were ta.ken into consideration by the disciplinary authority for passing of the final order, were not the new docujnents and, therefore, the respondent was not prejudiced in any manner. We have perused the order and it is admitted case that after the submission of the inquiry report: by the inquiry officer and after the representation having been made by the respondent against the report of the inquJry officer, the disciplinary authority considered additional documents which were not annexed with the charge-sheet and even in the final order, the disciplinary authority had mentioned the same. Nowhere it. has been explained as to what vra.s the naiaire of these additional docurnents, therefore, we would not like to interfere with the finding of facts arrived at by the WPfC) No.2559/2005 Page 1 of 2 SACHKHAND PRINTERS 01/05 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Sr. No. Date r^^aavr^-iX^tJUSxiX-. iatEW'S5-jiiiEiSi&e»?i20.rt2E« 3*SSb310 Orders Iparic! nni/L-iatfnpn (&] \~.V> 0 h-j stnQ I .oM .18 Tribunal regardingadditional documen|s, the | contents whereof wereneitherdisclosedto the CATinorwere|broughtto the noticeof the respondent. In our view^, Jdenuate|pportunlty to defend his case based on the additional documedts was not. provided to the respondent. The procedfre adop petitioneroffendsprincipleofnalairaljusticej No merits. The writ petition is disi'Jiissed. ;ed bv the February 11, 2005. skr WP(q No.2559/2005 't VJJend fyJain,J. ingh, J. Page 2bf2 SA©HKHAND«PRINTERS'0t/05™ "!t-vyTrfafj .'J, .