IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4110 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2010. ________________________________________________________________ Karam Chand. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner. : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner was charge-sheeted by the disciplinary authority. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 7th August, 1997 (Annexure P-1). The extract of the inquiry report was also annexed with the show cause notice. The petitioner made a representation to the Executive Engineer on 27th August, 1997 for the supply of the copy of inquiry report. However, without supplying the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer has ordered recovery of 50% of the amount of loss of H.D.P. Pipes from the petitioner vide office order dated 19th August, 1997 (Annexure P-3). 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others versus B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 has strenuously argued that the copy of inquiry report ought to have been supplied to his client to enable him to make a representation against the same. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was informed on 2nd September, 1997 that he may see the detailed inquiry report and other documents in the office. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is true that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and inquiry was held against him. He was called upon vide office order dated 7th August, 1997 to show cause why major/minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for two years be not imposed upon him. However, copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. What has been supplied to the petitioner with Annexure P-1, dated 7th August, 1997 is the extract of inquiry report, which is not sufficient compliance as per law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others versus B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727. The purpose of supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent is to enable him to point out shortcomings and flaws in the inquiry. In this case, the copy of inquiry report ought to have been supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same. The letter dated 2nd September, 1997 asking the petitioner to see detailed inquiry report and - 3 - other documents in the office is not sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the above observations, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General fairly submits that the copy of inquiry report shall be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 19th August, 1997 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to supply copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same and thereafter, it shall be open to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 24, 2010. (sck).