GURCHARAN SINGH BEDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was working as District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Ferozepur (under suspension), an order was issued on 9th February, 1991 by the Secretary to Government, Punjab Health and Family Welfare Department imposing punishment of compulsory retiring the petitioner from service in exercise of powers under Rule 5(vii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 with immediate effect. It was further ordered that during the period of suspension, the petitioner would not be entitled for anything more than the subsistence allowance. It is this order, the copy of which has been attached as Annexure P4 with the writ petition, that has been impugned before us.

(2.) Shorn of any detailed facts, suffice it to say that the departmental enquiry on certain allegations was held against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty of certain charges. It may be observed that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Government was not himself the Appointing Authority. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the impugned order dated 9.2.1991, copy Annexure P4 was passed by the Appointing Authority by which the Appointing Authority after concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

(3.) The primary grievance of the petitioner is that before the impugned order was passed by the Appointing Authority, the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and he had no opportunity to persuade the Appointing Authority not to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner before, the impugned order was passed, according to the petitioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he had not been afforded proper opportunity to criticise the findings of the Enquiry Officer before the Appointing Authority, In support of his submission, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 AIR(SC) 471. He drew our attention to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Paras 13 and 15 of the report: