HANS RAJ GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has joined service in the State of Punjab in the Department of Food & Supplies as Sub Inspector in January, 1959. He was promoted as Inspector and then as Assistant Food & Supplies Officer. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner by the Director, Food & Supplies on 30.11.1986 (Annexure P-1) alleging that he had made wrong recommendations for issuance of a wholesale licence of coal to a particular party. The petitioner had given a reply to the said charge- sheet and the same having not been found satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to go into the charge. The enquiry was concluded on 20.12.1988. Enquiry report has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the reply, respondent No.1, Secretary to the Government, Food & Supplies Deptt. passed an order on 2.5.1991 (Annexure P-5) dismissing the petitioner from service. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. Before adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that during the course of enquiry, petitioner was promoted as District Food & Supplies Officer on 2.6.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P-5) :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the list of reliance of documents and the list of witnesses which was attached to the charge-sheet. In the list of reliance of documents, only one document is mentioned i.e. enquiry report of Mr. Charanpal Singh Bawa, Deputy Director, Food and Supplies. This is the preliminary enquiry report. In the list of witnesses, only one witness is mentioned i.e. Mr. Charanpal Singh Bawa, Deputy Director who had held the preliminary enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have supplied the petitioner with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report inasmuch as not only it was relied upon by the prosecution but in fact it was the only document which was being relied upon and was produced, before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has also placed reliance on the same while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. In support of his contention, learned counsel cited a judgment of this Court in Prem Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others,1989 3 SLJ 127, which was upheld in LPA No. 1808 of 1989 decided on 31.7.1990. Even SLP against the said LPA was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Learned Single Judge in Prem Kumar's case held that the non-supply of copy of preliminary enquiry report to delinquent obviously prejudices him in arranging his defence in the course of enquiry. The dismissal order was quashed. While upholding the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the case , L.P.A. Bench observed as under :-

(3.) In the enquiry report, the preliminary enquiry report has been relied upon for recording the finding of guilt against the petitioner. The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that there was no need of supplying the preliminary enquiry report inasmuch as the sum and substance of the preliminary enquiry report was contained in the charge-sheet itself.