IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.719 of 2002 Reserved on: 15.7.2008 Date of decision: 18.7.2008 Mohinder Singh. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.D.Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate Generals. V.K.Ahuja,J. This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the H.P.State Administrative Tribunal dated 30.8.2001, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was dismissed and the order of removal of service passed by the respondent as against the petitioner was accordingly affirmed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving with the Police Department as a Steno-typist. A complaint was received against him by one Shalu Devi on 9.7.1999 addressed to Director General of Police that the petitioner had married Shalu Devi on 15.9.1996 and one daughter was born from this wed lock and the allegations made were that the petitioner was already married to one Kanta Devi and, accordingly, his act was violative of Rules (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 who denied the allegations. An inquiry was held against the petitioner and it was held by the Inquiry Officer that the charges against the petitioner were proved. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the penalty of removal from service and after taking reply from the petitioner, an order was passed by the respondent of removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the learned State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the said application and being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The main submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the inquiry has not been conducted in a fair manner since the petitioner prayed for time to engage a Defence Assistant, filed an application subsequently in this regard which was rejected by the Inquiry Officer and he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or produce his defence witnesses. Thus, it was submitted that the principles of natural justice were not followed in conducting the inquiry and, as such, the inquiry stands vitiated and consequently, the orders passed by the competent authority i.e. the respondents of removal from service of the petitioner are liable to be set aside as well as the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal. To substantiate his case that the principles of natural justice were not followed, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the following decisions. The decision in State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal and another (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651 shows that the employee has to be expressly informed that he has an alternative course of inspecting the documents. Inquiry is vitiated if without informing him, it is left to him to inspect 3 documents if he so wanted. It was also held that if the charged employee is required to submit reply to charge sheet without having copies of the statements, he is deprived of opportunity of effective hearing. It was further held that supply of copies is also necessary where witnesses making the statements are intended to be examined against him in regular inquiry. It was further observed that the State failed to establish that non-supply of copies of statements during preliminary enquiry did not cause any prejudice to the respondents, therefore, the inquiry was held to be vitiated. The decision in Sanjoy Sen vs. Union of India and others 1984(2) All India Services Law Journal 600 shows that the case of the management was represented by a trained investigator of C.B.I. while the delinquent official was not allowed to engage legal practitioner. It was held that it is denial of reasonable opportunity to defend and therefore, the inquiry was vitiated. Coming to the facts of the case, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was submitted by the petitioner on 1.6.2000 that he wants to engage a Defence Assistant and wanted two weeks’ time to be given to engage a Defence Assistant. The Inquiry Officer observed on the application itself that since the petitioner had mentioned earlier that he does not want any Defence Assistant, therefore, the request was declined. A perusal of the record of the Inquiry Officer shows that it was observed that an option was given to the petitioner if he wants to engage a Defence Assistant and he had mentioned “no” and the said order sheet dated 29.5.2000 bears his signatures also. It may be that he had earlier mentioned that he does not need a Defence Assistant but no statement of his was recorded and this was mentioned in the order sheet which bears his signatures also. However it was pointed out that a telegraphic message was sent to the petitioner and he was asked to bring his witnesses on 4 26.5.2000 and accordingly no sufficient time was given to him to produce defence witnesses. It is also clear that he had submitted an application in writing that he needs the services of a defence assistant which was not allowed to him simply by observing that he had earlier declined to take the services of the defence assistant. A perusal of the records also shows that since the Inquiry Officer was given a direction to complete the inquiry within the shortest period and submit his report, therefore, he fixed very short dates and did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his witnesses in defence and he was also not permitted to engage a Defence Assistant through he required such services and had prayed in writing in this regard. It follows from the above discussion that Inquiry Officer appeared to be in a hurry to conclude the inquiry since he was required to submit the Inquiry Report within the shortest time and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were not followed since the petitioner was not given the time to engage Defence Assistant and produce his defence witnesses. Therefore, his case can be said to have been prejudiced and, therefore, the inquiry report submitted as against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, since the principles of natural justice were not followed, the order of dismissal of service of the petitioner from service passed by the respondents as well as the order of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal affirming the said order, are quashed accordingly. The respondents shall take further action by appointing an Inquiry Officer, who shall proceed with the case and shall conduct the proceedings afresh as were conducted on or after 1.6.2000 i.e. an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to cross-examine Smt. Shalu who was examined, and thereafter, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to produce his defence witnesses. Needless to say that reasonable time shall 5 be given to the petitioner to engage a defence assistant and efforts can be made to dispose of the inquiry at an early date, but reasonable opportunity shall be given to the petitioner in this regard. The petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta),J. 18th July, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja) (sds)