HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure P-7/T), vide which he was dismissed from service, order dated 3.11.2008 endorsed on 6.11.2008 (Annexure P-9/T) passed by the Appellate Authority vide which his appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed and order dated 14.5.2009 endorsed on 26.6.2009 (Annexure P-11/T), vide which revision against the appellate order was dismissed. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, the only grievance raised by the petitioner was that while issuing show cause notice before imposition of punishment, copy of the enquiry report was not appended. It was the conceded position that no issue with regard to that was raised either in appeal or in revision. To buttress the arguments raised, reference was made to judgment of this Court in Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy v. The State of Punjab, 1992 1 SCT 681. It was further stated by the petitioner that the original order of punishment may not be interfered with, however, the revisional order be set aside with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issues again before the Revisional Authority.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice, the same amounts to denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case against him and the same will vitiate all further proceedings. However, he submitted that at the time of issuance of notice of motion, he had limited his prayer to the extent that only revisional order be set aside so as to enable the petitioner to present his case before the re-visional authority after copy of the enquiry report supplied to him. Learned counsel was candid in stating that no objection pertaining to the alleged non-supply of copy of the enquiry report was raised by him either before the Punishing Authority or before the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. The same is being raised for the first time before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if this Court finds that the aforesaid contention is not meritorious, still the case is required to be examined from another angle namely that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the proved allegations. A lighter punishment Could be imposed as a result of which the petitioner could get his service benefits.