AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated January 10, 1991 by which he has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and also the recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,938/- has been directed to be made from his dues. This order is challenged on various grounds raised in the writ petition. However, the primary ground urged before me is that the order of punishment had been passed by the authority on the basis of the enquiry report (Annexure P. 3), dated June 8, 1987, a copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order. It is contended that if a copy of the enquiry report had been supplied, it could have been shown that the petitioner had been exonerated of the charge of embezzlement levelled against him, the procedure followed was totally illegal and that the findings were not warranted by the evidence on record. On this premises it is contended that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice.
I have heard Mr. K. K. Jagia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Admittedly, the event with regard to the petitioner was charge-sheeted relates to the year 1979. The charge-sheet was given to the petitioner vide letter dated May 7, 1986. The order of punishment was passed on January 10, 1991. Leaving aside the inordinately long delay and also the fact that the petitioner had been proceeded against on the primary charge of embezzlement, it is not disputed before me that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. It is no doubt correct that by the 42nd amendment the necessity for the issue of a show cause notice regarding the imposition of punishment has been obviated. However, it appears to me to be just and fair that the delinquent official should get a copy of the enquiry report so that he is able to give his comments thereon. These comments cannot only '' relate to the appreciation of evidence on record, but can also show that the enquiry officer had not followed the requisite procedure as prescribed under the law. Thereupon, the appropriate authority can consider the evidence recorded during the enquiry proceedings, the report submitted by the enquiry officer and the comments given by the delinquent, official before arriving at the final decision. Such a course of action would be in conformity with the basic principles of natural justice.. Failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report would deprive the official concerned of the opportunity to give his comments on the enquiry report. This would be violative of the principles of natural justice. The view taken by me finds support from the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, . Their Lordships were pleased to observe as under :-
"We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position."
In view of the above dictum of law, the petitioner was entitled to be supplied a copy of the enquiry report. This was admittedly not done. Consequently, there was a denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order at Annexure P. 4 is set aside. Consequential relief''s shall follow. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.