DEEPAK PURI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The main contention raised before us in this case is that the appellant to whom a memo dated 24/11/1992 was issued in which the number of charges against him were indicated, had prayed for copies of certain documents including attested copies of complaint, inquiry report and copies of all the enclosures and statements appended to the inquiry report to be furnished to him so as to enable him to submit his reply but the documents were not supplied to him and the inquiry is being proceeded against him. This has caused serious prejudice to him and he would not be able to get a fair opportunity of hearing at the inquiry.

(3.) It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant was given an opportunity to inspect the documents on any; working day between 24/8/1999 to 26/8/1999 in the Office of the Director General, Health Services, Haryana but the opportunity was not availed of by the appellant. In this connection, our attention was invited to a letter from the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Health Department to the appellant which is , dated 19/8/1999. It is mentioned in this letter that the appellant may inspect "government legal documents". The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that "government legal documents" is a vague term. It does not mean that all the documents the copies of which were sought for by the appellant were "government legal documents". The respondents in spite of the appellant's objection to this effect have not clarified as to what is meant by "government legal documents".