IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9377/2008 Decided on:13.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Kesar Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 13.7.1998 under rule Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted report on 13.12.1999. The Disciplinary Authority without supplying the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner, imposed penalty of withholding of two increments 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 with cumulative effect vide memo dated 20.1.2000. Petitioner has also filed a detailed representation on 24.11.2000, which has not been decided till date. The fact of the matter is that before the decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalty, the copy of inquiry report was required to be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to point out deficiencies/shortcomings in the inquiry report. The petitioner has been prejudiced by the non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report. 2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others versus B. Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727 have held that supplying the copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent is integral part of the reasonable opportunity. Their Lordships have further held that non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. Their Lordships have held as under: “26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the 3 punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary, authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it. 4 29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice” 3. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by the Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 20.1.2000 is quashed and set aside. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to supply the copy of the inquiry report dated 13.12.999 to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation. The Disciplinary Authority, after the receipt of the representation, shall take a final decision. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 13.12.2010 *awasthi*