THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25153 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as District Manager on contract basis by the Andhra Pradesh Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation, respondent No.2 herein, way back in the year 1996, and at present, she is working as such at Guntur. Though the initial appointment was for a period of three years, she is being continued in that office ever since then. Through Memo, dated 07.01.2010, the explanation was called for from the petitioner alleging that she certified the installation of ten Computers in the Office, though the installation was not complete and proper. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 18.01.2010. Through proceedings, dated 03.07.2010, respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.09.2010. Respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 27.09.2010, terminating the service of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that she was not furnished with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer before the impugned order was passed and that a serious illegality has crept into the proceedings. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the allegation against the petitioner as to the improper certification of the installation of the Computers, was proved and taking the same into account, the impugned order was passed. It is urged that the services of the petitioner are contractual in nature and strictly speaking, there was no necessity to conduct departmental enquiry at all. Heard Smt.K.Rajitha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.S.Raju, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner was appointed as District Manager on contract basis. The fact, however, remains that she is continuing in service for the past one and half decades. A Memo was issued to her pointing out certain irregularities in the matter of certification of installation of Computers. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the respondents have chosen to appoint an Enquiry Officer. The very purpose of appointing an Enquiry Officer is to enable the parties to put forward their versions vis-à-vis the charges. An employee, who is facing enquiry, is entitled to be furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. In certain cases, the Rules may mandate that a second show cause notice must be issued based upon the findings and in certain other cases, the issuance of second show cause notice is not necessary. However, in either case, furnishing of report of the Enquiry Officer is mandatory before the appointing authority passes an order adverse to the interest of the employees. In the instant case, the report was not furnished to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. There is a clear recital in the impugned order itself to the effect that the report of the Enquiry Officer is enclosed. Hence, the impugned order suffers from the vice of not furnishing the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed. I n Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B.Karunakar[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the view that failure to furnish the enquiry report must not entail in reinstatement of the employee with back wages. On the other hand, it was suggested that the order can be set aside leaving it open to the employer to furnish a copy of the report. Naturally, such a course would lead to continuance of the suspension pending enquiry. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to submit explanation with reference to the report of the Enquiry Officer within a period of three weeks from today. It shall be open to the respondents to take the same into account and pass appropriate orders. However, before any orders adverse to the interest of the petitioner are passed, the respondents shall pay the subsistence allowance together with arrears, if any for the entire period during which she is under suspension. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.11.2010. Note: Issue cc in one week. (b/o) kdl [1] AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1074(1)