STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HARENDRA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a writ application dismissing the same has been challenged in this appeal whereby order passed by Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal quashing order of dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service has been upheld.

(2.) Respondent No. 1-Harendra Arora (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), who was temporarily appointed in the year 1960 as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government, was confirmed on the said post and in the year 1963 he was remitted as Executive Engineer. On 31-3-1970 the respondent was served with a charge sheet by the Administrative Tribunal incorporating therein various irregularities committed by him with regard to the purchase of goods while he was posted as Executive Engineer at the concerned station, requiring him to submit his explanation relating thereto which was duly submitted. Upon receipt of the show cause, full-fledged enquiry was conducted whereafter the Administrative Tribunal submitted its report to the State Government recording a finding therein that the charge was substantiated and recommending dismissal of the respondent from service, upon receipt of which the State Government issued a show cause to the respondent as to why he be not dismissed from service. Pursuant to the said notice, the respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice whereupon the State Government sent the reply to the Administrative Tribunal for its comments and upon receipt of the same, order was passed on 13-3-1973 dismissing the respondent from service which order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court by filing a writ application and the same having abated in view of the coming into force of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, a claim petition was filed by the respondent before the U.P. State Public Services. Tribunal challenging his aforesaid order of dismissal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the order of dismissal principally on the ground that copy of the enquiry report, as required under Rule 55-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as amended by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, was not furnished to the delinquent against which order when a writ application was filed on behalf of the State, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same upholding order of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, merely because an enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent the same would not invalidate the order of dismissal unless it is shown that the delinquent has been prejudiced thereby and in the present case there is nothing to show that the respondent has been prejudiced, as such setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was uncalled for. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submitted that the law laid down in the case of ECIL has no application to this case as according to the set of rules governing service condition of the respondent, there was requirement of furnishing copy of proceedings of enquiry, which would obviously include the enquiry report, whereas in the case of ECIL there was no such requirement under the statutory rules, rather the requirement was by viture of interpretation put forth upon Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, as approved in the case of ECIL, and consequently the prejudice theory as laid down in the case of ECIL will not apply to the present case and the order was righlty quashed for mere infraction of the rule in not furnishing copy of the enquiry report. This, in view of the rival contentions, the following question arises for our consideration :-