BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was promoted as Assistant Superintendent Jail on 17.7.1995 and posted at Sub -Jail Hiranagar, whereafter he was transferred to Sub -Jail Reasi. He was placed under suspension vide order No. 350 of 2001 dated 28.4.2001 on the allegation of having committed embezzlement of Rs. 1,81,000/ -. He challenged the order of his suspension through SWP No. 954/2001 and by an interim direction passed by this Court on 14.5.2001 his order of suspension was stayed. Faced with the staying of the suspension order the respondents recalled the same by order No. 470/2001 dated 18.5.2001 and enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner was initiated. After completion of the enquiry a show cause notice dated 25.6.2001 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.6.2001. After considering the reply of the petitioner the respondents imposed the punishment of reversion to the post of Head Warden from the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the reversion the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment inter alia on the ground that with the show cause notice copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was not furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, his valuable right of putting up proper defence to the show cause notice was rendered elusory. Therefore non -furnishing of the copy of the report has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, which renders the order of punishment invalid and bad in law being in violation of the mandate of Art.34 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.

(2.) THE case of the respondents is that there was no requirement of law for furnishing of the enquiry report. The question of vitiating the order of punishment on the ground of non -furnishing of copy of the enquiry report with the show cause notice, according to the respondents, can arise only when prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. According to the respondents it is not the case of the petitioner set up in the writ petition that any prejudice has been caused to him because of non -furnishing of copy of the enquiry report, therefore, the petition of the petitioner merits to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.