AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel submits that while furnishing copy of the enquiry report, show cause notice dated 09.08.2024, Annexure P-4 was issued, seeking reply agreeing with the findings of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority, thus, virtually no opportunity was granted to submit any objections thereto. In a similar challenge, the impugned orders were set aside in case of Praveer Goel vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-7481-2020, decided on 27.11.2024, against which LPA-1047-2025 filed by the State was dismissed on 02.12.2025, relevant paras whereof read thus:
“ xx xx
7.Having gone through the materials placed on record, we are inclined to concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the employer had denied adequate opportunity to the employee of contest on the merits of the inquiry report. The employee was entitle to a fair opportunity at the stage of submission of the inquiry report and only after consideration of such reply that the disciplinary authority could have formed an opinion, on merits, of the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer.
8.We, therefore, are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the matter needs to be re-visited from the stage of submission of inquiry report. This is what exactly has been done by the learned Single Judge as is clear from paragraph No.8 of the judgment, which is reproduced:-
“As an upshot of the above, the impugned orders dated 17.10.2016, 20.11.2019 and 20.03.2020, Annexures P-3, P-8 and P-25 respectively, are hereby set aside, but the respondent-Department is given liberty to restart the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of serving the show cause notice and seek his reply and pass an appropriate order by following the due procedure. In case, as per the fresh order, any punishment lesser than the one already imposed, is imposed, while passing the same, the intervening period for which the petitioner remained out of service, be also decided in accordance with law and the rules governing the service. Benefit if any admissible upon setting aside the order of dismissal, will depend upon the order to be passed and none will accrue ipso facto to him.”
9.In that view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal as well as cross-objections with the observation that the SCN issued by the employer dated 17.10.2016 which would be treated as a notice to the employee with regard to merits of the inquiry report. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit such objection/reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today. The disciplinary authority shall then be at liberty to examine the merits of such objection/reply and proceed to pass further appropriate orders as may be warranted in accordance with law.”
Learned State counsel, despite best efforts has been unable to controvert as regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary thereto.
In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 29.07.2023, 09.08.2024, 19.07.2024, 14.08.2024, 29.10.2024 and 29.04.2026 Annexures P-3 to P-6, P-8 and P-11 respectively, are hereby set aside, however, the respondent-Department is given liberty to commence the proceedings serving of a show cause notice, seeking reply and thereafter, decide the matter in accordance with law.
It is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Disposed of accordingly.