Balwant Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

challenged by the petitioner and was accepted by him. The said fact having not been disclosed at the time of his entry in service with GREF, the charges against the petitioner stood proved in the inquiry proceedings and, therefore, the order passed by the punishing authority relying upon the inquiry proceedings and inquiry report, cannot be said to be without any basis and no interference is called for in this regard. As regards the supply of inquiry report to the petitioner by respondents, counsel for respondents refers to the representation dated

29.01.1996 submitted by the petitioner, wherein he had himself in the heading of the representation stated that he was submitting his supplementary representation on receipt of the inquiry report. On this basis, she submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as he was duly supplied with the copy of the inquiry report and it was admitted by him in the representation and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were duly complied with. On this basis, she prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It would not be out of way to mention here that the records were called for by this Court, vide Order dated 08.03.2010 as there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the fact as to whether the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner or not before passing of the impugned order of punishment. The facts are not in dispute as has been spelt C.W.P. No. 9227 of 1996. -5- out in the above order. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner was issued Memorandum dated 19.12.1995 proposing the punishment of penalty of removal from service. A representation dated 11.01.1996 was made by the petitioner, wherein request was made for supply of copy of the inquiry report together with statement of witnesses and statement of the petitioner furnished before the Enquiry Officer. In response to the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents supplied him with one copy of the inquiry proceedings. In the receipt dated 15.01.1996, which was in response to the representation dated 11.01.1996 submitted by the petitioner, it has been specifically mentioned that the copy of the inquiry proceedings supplied to the petitioner contains six pages. The said receipt is counter signed by the Commanding Officer. The said receipt does not disclose that the copy of the inquiry report was also handed over to the petitioner. A perusal of the records as submitted by respondents in the Court shows that the inquiry proceedings contains six pages. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that what was supplied to the petitioner, was the inquiry proceedings and not the inquiry report. Mere mentioning of the petitioner in the subsequent representation dated 29.01.1996 with regard to the receipt of inquiry report does not prove that the inquiry report was received by the petitioner. It is not the stand of the respondents that after supply of the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was supplied with the inquiry report. That being so, the order of punishment cannot be said to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice, which mandates that an employee should be given an opportunity to explain his position with regard to the inquiry and the findings recorded in the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Since the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra), C.W.P. No. 9227 of 1996. -6- can be referred to here. In the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the law laid down therein, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. As regards the objection raised by counsel for respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition, suffice it to say that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in Chandigarh. He is resident of Hoshiarpur, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, the present writ petition was filed in the year 1996 and, although, this objection was raised at the initial stage, but at the admission stage, no right to press the said objection was reserved by the respondents. That apart, it would not be just and equitable for this Court to non suit the petitioner at this stage merely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. This very position would be covering the second objection raised by counsel for respondents that the petitioner should have availed of alternative remedy of filing an Appeal under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965. When the Court has come to definitive conclusion that the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, which violates the principles of natural justice, the relegation of the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing an Appeal as per the statutory Rules at this stage after the passing of 14 years from the date, the present writ petition was preferred, would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, the objections as raised by counsel for respondents are hereby rejected. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 07.05.1996 (Annexure-P-5), passed by the respondents, is hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to supply copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and thereafter, if the petitioner prefers to file a C.W.P. No. 9227 of 1996. -7- representation, consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Records as submitted by respondents are perused and the same returned to counsel. April 30, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE