RAMANLAL DALSUKHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The letter communicating to the petitioner that his appeal has been dismissed does not contain any reason. No reasons are supplied or communicated to the petitioner for dismissal of his appeal. By the appeal-memo, the petitioner has raised several grounds against the impugned order of dismissal. It appears that the Appellate Authority has not dealt with or disposed of any of such grounds or, at any rate, no reason for dismissal of the appeal has been communicated to the petitioner. It is also the grievance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and on account of that also, the impugned dismissal order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. It is true that the petitioner is entitled to the copy of the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer to the Disciplinary Authority so as to enable him to make proper representation against it. It is settled law that non-furnishing of the report to the delinquent is violative of the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned dismissal order invalid. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and the same was supplied to respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed. In quasi-judicial proceeding, non-supply of adverse materials to the affected person, but supply thereof to the authority taking decision against him on that basis does not constitute violation of rules of natural justice. The Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bhaishanker Avalram Joshi and Another, 10, G.L.R. 851 and submitted that non-supply of copy of report of the Inquiry Officer amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. In paras 6, 7 and 9 of the said ruling, it is observed that the failure on the part of the competent Authority to provide the delinquent with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is true that the question whether reasonable opportunity has or has not been afforded to the Government servant would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but it would be in a very rare case wherein it could be said that the Government servant is not prejudiced by the non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Union of India and Others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 588, wherein the same view is taken by the Supreme Court.

(2.) In Union of India v. Bakshi Ram, AIR 1990 SC 987, the Supreme Court observed that the dismissal from service in view of conviction and subsequent release on probation would not obliterate a stigma of conviction. The delinquent in such circumstances may not be entitled to reinstatement in service upon getting benefit of probation for good conduct. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying upon the said judgment, contended that the dismissal order passed by the respondent No. 2 is sustainable. It is true that the accused, who get benefits of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, may not be entitled to be reinstated in service. In the instant case, however, the impugned order of dismissal is held to be bad in law on account of violation of principle of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in defending his case in the departmental inquiry.

(3.) The learned A.G.P. also relied upon the case of Gyan Chand Chattar v. Union of India and Ors., 24(1)G.L.R. 666 and contended that High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal on the departmental proceedings and the result arrived at therein. It is true that High Court may not sit a court of appeal, but at the same time, if the order is vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice, the Court can pass appropriate order. In said judgment, it is also observed that the High Court is entitled to embark upon the inquiry to the limited extent of finding out as to whether the findings reached by the disciplinery authority are perverse or unreasonable. Therefore, the authority relied upon by the learned A.G.P. does not help him. The learned A.G.P. also relied upon the case of M. G. Jani v. State Bank of Saurasthra, 24(2) G.L.R. 1145. It is held in the said case that ordinarily the court would have sympathy for an employee who is going to loose his employment and thereby his means of maintenance would disappear. But in a case wherein the employee is guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude or a deliberate act of dishonesty, the Court's sympathy would be misplaced and may result in injustice done to the employer. Rule made absolute.