IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8077 of 2011 Date of Decision:28.7.2011 Shiv Kumar Shori .... Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) The only grievance of the petitioner is that the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet were not supplied to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner represented to the department and requested for the supply of the documents. The request of the petitioner was declined. The petitioner submitted second representation dated 23.2.2011. Ignoring the second representation, the respondents appointed the inquiry officer without waiting for the reply of the petitioner. However, after the inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 11.4.2011, the respondents supplied the documents to be relied against the petitioner during the course of inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has relied upon the explanation made under Rule 25 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules 1975) which reads as under: “It will not be necessary to show the documents listed C.W.P. No.8077 of 2011 -2- with the charge-sheet or any other document to the employee at this stage.” A perusal of the same shows that the said explanation is not absolute and rather an exercise of discretion which cannot be used arbitrarily. The question as to whether the documents were necessary is rather apparent from the fact that the petitioner requested not once but twice for supplying the said documents. The said documents were required by him to file the reply. He was deprived of an opportunity of submitting an effective defence. The fact that these very documents were supplied subsequently shows that the same were important and therefore, failure of the respondents to supply those documents to the petitioner has vitiated the very order appointing the inquiry officer itself. Moreover, the petitioner has filed the present petition at the very initial stage. The enquiry has not yet commenced after the order of appointing enquiry officer. Accordingly, now that the documents stand supplied, order dated 11.4.2011 (P-5) is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after considering the reply filed by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has already received the documents, he is directed to submit his reply within 15 days from today. Disposed of in the above terms. 28.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE