MAGHAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is required to be allowed on a singular consideration that the order of punishment removing the petitioner from service was issued on 6.3.1990 without either serving the inquiry officer's report finding him guilty of the charges or affording to the petitioner an opportunity to show cause why the report shall not be accepted and why the proposed action of removal from service cannot be issued. This is a fundamental requirement of natural justice and the position is too well settled for requiring an elaborate statement. The Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and another Vs. B. Karunakar : (1993) 4 SCC 727 has ruled that the notice requirement of the inquiry officer's report is a constitutional imperative. There could be exceptions where an employee would still be required to show a prejudice for the fact that the report was not supplied to him. This could be a situation where even though inquiry officer's report is not served, a disciplinary authority has examined the report and had come to a provisional conclusion that the report had to be accepted and if a show notice is issued at the second stage against the proposed action, it cannot possibly cause prejudice for an employee. At such a stage, the employee could join issues on the findings on the report as well as the proposed action against removal. The employee will have then an opportunity to rebut the basis of such conclusion by the disciplinary authority as not established. It secure an employee an indirect method of meeting the issues, which are put out against him by the disciplinary authority who purports to act on the report of the Inquiry Officer. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in this regard would require to be re -produced for deriving a final answer to the untenability of the order passed by the authorities.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the State would still argue that the impugned order itself refers to the reply of the charged officer. The reply which the impugned order refers to is the reply given by him on 24.12.1982 on the charge sheet issued to him before the conduct of inquiry. The reply subsequent to the report for an opportunity for an employee to point out that it had no basis for its finding was simply not given. The petitioner has made pointed contentions as regards the violation of principles of natural justice and the violation of the relevant rule 9.4 of the Service Rules 1970 that mandated service of notice of the inquiry officer's report and a show cause notice to explain before decision for dismissal is taken. The respondent has not countered this point even by filing reply inspite of the fact that the case has been brought for hearing after nearly 23 years of its initial institution.