Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 912 of 2001 (S/S) Prem Singh Rawat ………… Petitioner Versus District Administrative Committee, U.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Centralised Services, District Chamoli & another ………… Respondents Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Hon’ble P.C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st March 2001 passed by the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner were dismissed. 2) Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was Secretary in Primary Agriculture Credit Society and was member of centralized service under Rule 3 of the U.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies centralized Service Rues, 1976. The petitioner was posted with respondent No. 2, U.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Punar in District Rudraprayag. On 27.03.2000, vide resolution No. 3, the respondent No. 1, District Administrative Committee of the Society decided to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of certain charges and placed him under suspension vide its order dated 31.03.2000. One Sri Suresh Ram Arya, Senior Manager (Collection) was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. A charge sheet (Copy Annexure- 1 to the 2 writ petition) was served on the petitioner containing as many as eight charges and petitioner was asked to give his explanation and reply to the charges. The eight charges included absence from duty without sanctioned leave, low 6% recovery of loan against the target, absence from the meetings, failure in preventing the trespassers from encroaching upon the land of the Society, embezzlement of Rs. 3486.80 and violation of Regulation 40 of the U.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules. According to the petitioner, he submitted written explanation dated 10.08.2000 (Copy Annexure- 2 to the writ petition) in reply to the charge sheet. In the said reply, the petitioner submitted that he has already submitted leave on medical ground for the period of his absence. It is further submitted in the reply that petitioner made every effort to make the recovery against the target but failed even after persuading the debtors. The petitioner denied having violated any Regulation 40. Also, in said written explanation he explained that due to the illness of his wife he could not attend the meetings. As to the embezzlement, the petitioner submitted before the Enquiry Officer through aforesaid reply that he had already deposited Rs. 3,000/- and only Rs. 486.80 is required to be deposited which he undertook to deposit in the account of the Society. Lastly, as to the failure to stop encroachment, the petitioner’s answer to the charge was that when he went to ask the trespassers to vacate the land, the encroachers used abusive language against the petitioner and threatened him to kill. In the writ petition the petitioner has alleged regarding absence from duty in 1989 that he was earlier charge sheeted and he cannot be punished twice. In the month of November 2000, a show cause notice (Copy Annexure- 8 to the writ petition) was sent to the petitioner without supplying copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner was asked vide letter dated 08.02.2001 to appear on 26.02.2001 before the District Administrative Committee 3 regarding hearing of the enquiry but he was not permitted on said date to enter inside the room and was told that the decision of the Committee would be communicated to him. As such without affording the opportunity of being heard he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 01.03.2001 which according to the petitioner is illegal and against the law. 3) Notices were sent to the respondents by registered post also but they did not turn up to contest the writ petition. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the affidavit along with copy of annexures annexed thereto. 5) The short questions for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order dated 01.03.2001 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service is illegal or not? 6) From the affidavits and annexures annexed thereto it is clearly established that the petitioner was placed under suspension and a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him regarding which a charge sheet containing eight charges (Copy Annexure- 1 to the writ petition) was served on him. As mentioned above charges included absence from duty without sanctioned leave, negligence in making recovery of the loans, violation of Regulation 40 of the U.P. Primary Agriculture Co- operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, absence from the meetings of the Society, embezzlement of Rs. 3486.80, failure in preventing trespassers from encroaching upon the property of the Society, violation of Section 31(2) of U.P. Co- operative Society Act, 1965 and non compliance of the audit report. The written reply (Copy Annexure- 2 to the writ petition) against the charge sheet appears to have been admittedly submitted by the petitioner in which the petitioner has stated that he has performed his duties with full integrity. Explaining the 4 low recovery of loans he has stated that he kept on persuading the debtors. As to the absence from meetings of the Society, the petitioner in his said reply has stated that his wife was ill. As to the charge of the non compliance of the audit report his answer was that he sent information to the concerned persons. As to the embezzlement, the reply in the said written explanation was that the petitioner deposited Rs. 3,000/- on 16.02.2000 and only remaining Rs. 486.80 was to be deposited, which he undertook to deposit with the Society. The petitioner further explained in his written explanation / reply before the Enquiry Officer that when he made attempt to evacuate the trespassers from the property of the Society, they threatened him to kill. However, after submitting said written reply, in rest of the proceedings of the enquiry, the petitioner has stated that he was not permitted to participate nor was supplied copy of the enquiry report. Instead, he was given only a show cause notice dated 15.11.2000 (Copy Annexure- 8 to the writ petition) which was replied by him on 05.12.2000 (Copy Annexure- 9 to the writ petition). And thereafter impugned order (Copy Annexure- 10 to the writ petition) appears to have been passed on 01.03.2001. 7) From the perusal of the impugned order (Copy Annexure-10) it appears that after mentioning the charge, it is nowhere discussed what evidence was recorded or what documents were seen. Straight away, after mentioning of the charges it is mentioned that the charges stood proved and in the last para the petitioner is directed to be dismissed from service. It is settled principle of law that the delinquent official should not only have been given a fair opportunity to defend himself at the time of enquiry by should also have been served with the copy of the enquiry report so that he could have made his submission before the punishment is awarded against him. The respondents have not turned up in the Court to contest to petition. In the 5 circumstances, from the papers whatever filed by the petitioner it appears that no enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Instead, only show cause notice (Copy Annexure- 8) appears to have been issued to the petitioner. In this show cause notice, separately this much is admitted that each of the charge is proved against the petitioner. But what was the evidence considered is nowhere mentioned. There is mention of enquiry report dated 30.08.2000 in said show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that said enquiry report was never served on the petitioner nor shown to him as such he was deprived from defending himself properly before the order of dismissal was passed against him. This Court is in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. And failure to supply copy of enquiry report to the petitioner vitiates the enquiry. As such the impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 8) In view of the above discussion and circumstances, this Court has no option but to quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2001 (Copy Annexure-10 to the writ petition). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2001 is quashed. Respondents are directed to supply a copy of the enquiry repot dated 30.08.2000 to the petitioner and shall consider his submissions in reply thereto before awarding any punishment. The petitioner shall be treated to have been in service during this period but under suspension as on 01.03.2001 and shall be entitled for subsistence allowance as per the rules till the suspension order is recalled or the enquiry is concluded. No order as to costs. (P.C. Pant, J.) Dt. 15th Sept. 2004. H.Negi