CWP No. 15302 of 2001 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 14998 of 2009 CWP No. 15302 of 2001 Date of Decision : 3.12.2009 Bharat Bhushan .......... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electiricity Board & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the relief claimed in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 4129 of 1999 titled Kuldeep Singh Vs. Secretary to the Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala & others decided on 2.8.1999. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed the following order in the writ petition filed by Kuldeep Singh to challenge his order of reversion as well as order passed by the appellate authority. :- “Petitioner was working as a skilled worker with the Punjab State Electricity Board. Vide order dated February 2, 1998, he was reduced in rank as an unskilled worker. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated June 16, 1998. Copies of the two CWP No. 15302 of 2001 2 orders have been placed on record as Annexures P-6 and P-7. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that the impugned order of punishment was passed without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. In particular, it has been pointed out that a copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before the penalty was awarded. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Boparai, who appears for the respondents does not dispute that a copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before the impugned order of penalty was passed. This was clearly violative of the rules and principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. These are quashed. This will, however, not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the case of the petitioner would not be covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Secretary to the Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala & others (supra) in view of the fact that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the standing orders which do not provide to supply of inquiry report to an employee. However, he was not able to dispute the fact that in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. Secretary to the Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala & others ( supra) Kuldeep Singh was similarly situated, as that of the petitioner, as CWP No. 15302 of 2001 3 the services of both of them were governed by the same rules. The supply of copy of the inquiry report is not merely based on statutory provisions but is based on settled principle of natural justice because of non-supply of inquiry report, the delinquent officer does not get an opportunity to defend himself at the time of his personal hearing or reply to the show cause notice or at the time of order of punishment. As already observed above, once Kuldeep Singh was similarly situated as that of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with law. 3.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE