RAM NARAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.G.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 6.11.1989 placing the petitioner under suspension as well as the order of imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from his service w.e.f. 21.8.1991 be quashed.

(2.) This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage on the ground that in the writ petition it has been averred in para (G) of the Ground that the disciplinary authority .passed its order dated 21.8.1991 on the report of the inquiry officer, which was never supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) That aspect of the matter has not been controverted by the respondent. Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of SR 64 of the ICCSR Service Regulations, 1970 in case of major penalty such penalty cannot be imposed until an opportunity has been granted to the employee to make representation against the penalty proposed to be awarded in the light of the finding of the inquiry officer. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Pradeep Kum.ar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biolosy JT 2002 (4) SC 146, Manaains Director. ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar AIR 1994 SC 1074 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. RamJan Khan AIR 1991 SC 471.