SARITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the report of the Inquiry Officer has not been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a new Inquiry Officer has been appointed for conducting fresh inquiry without any notice to the petitioner mentioning reasons for disagreement or non-acceptance of the Inquiry Officer's report.

(2.) WHILE technically, this argument is correct but when litigants approach this Court in equitable discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in addition to the technicality of the plea of natural justice he must also show as to how he is prejudiced .Petitioner has not controverted the observation of the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-15) which says that the earlier Inquiry Officer has sent a report without examining the complete record.