R L RAZDAN Vs. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, HANDICRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that there has been denial of a reasonable and fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and the rules of natural justice have been respected in their breach during the departmental enquiry at all material stages.

(2.) THE facts are simple but revealing. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Carpet Training Officer in the Handicrafts Departments at Kachberi, Badgam. He was placed under suspension vide order No.20/8(l8)/80 -adm -ll dated 10 -12 -1981 as disciplinary proceedings, on allegations of certain misconduct and misbehavior, were contemplated against him. The petitioner was thereafter served with a memorandum of charges and as many as five charges were leveled against him. Along with the memorandum of charges, a list of documents on which the charges were framed, was appended and as many as 12 documents were cited in the said list. The copy of the memorandum of charges, according to the petitioner, was received by him on 18 -1 -1982. He was granted 10 days time to submit his written statement. He, thereafter addressed a communication to the disciplinary authority, respondent No. 1, on 25 -1 -1V82, stating therein that the charges leveled against him were motivated and were an effort on the part of the administration to punish him for his trade union activities In the same communication the petitioner also requested the disciplinary authority to supply him Photostat copies of the relevant documents and the statements of witnesses, so that he was in a position to file his written statement. The documents, however, were not supplied and instead on 19 -3 -1982, the Section Officer (Vigilance) with the approval of respondent No. 1, informed the petitioner vide memorandum No. 20/8 -(18)/80 -Adm -H/77 that his request for supply of the document etc cannot be acceded to at this stage. He is specifically required to admit or deny each article of charge mentioned in memo No. 20/8 -(18)/80 -Adm II dated 7 -1 -1982."

(3.) MR . Handoo learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly argued that the non -supply of the copies of the documents and the evidence on the basis of which the department wanted to sustain the charges against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vitiated the enquiry inasmuch as the petitioner was denied a reasonable and fair opportunity to defend himself. The next submission of Mr. Handoo was that the enquiry officer was biased and his bias has vitiated the enquiry. He also argued that the enquiry officer had traveled beyond the scope of the enquiry, thus, invalidating the enquiry and the order of termination of services based thereon.