HARI OM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner was charge sheeted in the year 1989. A reply was given by the petitioner, which was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. Based on the Inquiry Report, the charges were found to be correct. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice dated 12th March, 1994 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him. The petitioner did not submit any reply and consequently, the disciplinary authority passed an order of termination dated 14th June, 1994. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a judgment dated 2nd May, 2007 holding that the Inquiry Officer was justified in giving a finding that the petitioner had obtained the promotion on the post of a Junior Clerk by producing a forged certificate. The learned Single Judge, consequently, found that since a forgery had been committed by the petitioner, he was not entitled for any relief and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. In the present Special Appeal, the learned Counsel has averred that a copy of the Inquiry Report was never served upon the petitioner, and consequently, on this ground, the order of termination, being violative of the principles of natural justice, was liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan", 1990 61 FLR 736 wherein it was held that it was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the Inquiry Report.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel, the Court finds that no such request was made by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority, demanding a copy of the Inquiry Report. In the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner after the submission of the Inquiry Report, the petitioner did not file any reply nor asked specifically for asking a copy of the Inquiry Report. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case was subsequently explained by the Supreme Court itself in the case of "Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. v. B. Kurunakar, 1993 67 FLR 1230 wherein it was held that it was not sufficient for the delinquent to urge that a copy of the Inquiry Report was not furnished and that non-furnishing of the Inquiry Report would not vitiate the order of termination. The Supreme Court held that the delinquent must show that a prejudice was caused to him on account of non-furnishing of the Inquiry Report. In the present case, these facts are lacking in the writ petition as well as in the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, there is a clear finding of fact that a forged document was filed by the petitioner in order to avail promotion on a higher post. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed.