PEDDIREDDY THIMMA REDDY FARM FOUNDATION Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether furnishing of report of enquiry to the person to whom a show-cause notice for taking action is mandatory before passing a final order on that show-cause notice.

(2.) THE petitioner, which was appointed as the Project Implementing Agency (PIA)to implement 12 watershed development programmes in Ranga Reddy District was supplied with guidelines, issued by government of India, and was directed to follow those guidelines for effective implementation of the watersheds and was given Rs. 18. 90 lakhs phases for execution of the works. On the ground that the petitioner committed some lapses in implementation of the watershed programmes, first respondent passed orders suspending the petitioner as PIA and appointed Mr. Syed Aziz Ahmed, Assistant director of Agriculture as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into those lapses and submit his report within a month. The enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 28. 12. 1998 as to why it should not be dismissed as PIA and why prosecution cannot be launched against it for the irregularities mentioned therein. Through its letter dated 7. 1. 1999, petitioner while making a request for furnishing of enquiry report submitted by the enquiry Officer, sought extension of time by 15 days for submission of its reply. The said request of the petitioner was negatived on the ground that the show-cause notice was issued basing on the records maintained by it only. Thereafter, by the notice impugned dated 30. 3. 1999, the first respondent directed recovery of Rs. 7,62,209/-said to have been misappropriated or mis-utilized by the petitioner from the petitioner and cancelled its appointment as pia with immediate effect. Questioning the same the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE main contention of Mr. V. Srinivas the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as held by the Apex court in Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) By lrs. v. State of A. P. , ( 1994 ) 5 SCC 118, furnishing of report of enquiry is a mandatory and as the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the petitioner in spite of its request, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that since the show-cause notice and also the final order also give all the details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner, which is aware of the irregularities alleged against it, and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered and as it was also afforded an opportunity of being heard, the proceedings impugned cannot be said to be vitiated for the mere failure to furnish a copy of the report of enquiry officer, petitioner was not put to any prejudice and contended that as the facts in Mohd. Quaramuddin (Dead) By LRs. 's case (supra), are different from the facts of this case, the ratio in that case is not applicable to this case, because the petitioner does have knowledge of the lapses committed by it. In reply, it is the contention of Mr. V. Srinivas is that mere giving an opportunity to submit an explanation and granting an opportunity of being heard would not cure the defect of the refusal to furnish the enquiry report.