CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3080 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 Ramesh Kumar Sardana .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. S. Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.3080 of 2010 (Ramesh Kumar Sardana Vs. State of Haryana) and 3114 of 2010 (K.K.Khosla Vs. State of Haryana). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.3080 of 2010. The petitioner was working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State and retired on 31.1.2006. Nearly after six months of his retirement, he was served a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 read with Rule 2.2 (b) of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3080 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: C.S.R. Volume II. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges on 18.8.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that without supplying him the copy of the enquiry report, he was served a show cause notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing, punishment of 1% cut in his pension for whole life is imposed. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he was called for personal hearing by Sh.Naresh Gulati, I.A.S., the then Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Public Health Department. The petitioner had apprised the officer that he had not been supplied the copy of the enquiry report and in the absence thereof, it was difficult for him to defend himself. It is categorically averred that the petitioner expressed his inability to defend himself as he was not aware as to on what points he was held blameworthy for the allegations made against him. He requested the concerned officer to supply him the copy of the enquiry report. The said Officer was subsequently transferred and the order has been passed by Sh.S.C.Chaudhary, who took over in his place, which would be another reason for the petitioner to impugn this order on the ground that personal hearing was granted by one officer whereas the impugned order has been passed by another, which would not be legally permissible or at any rate not a fair way to deal with a delinquent employee. Reply has been filed and attempt has been made to justify the punishment imposed. It is also said that the petitioner has not exhausted all his remedies available to him under law and detailed mention is made to the background on the basis of which CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3080 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: this charge was preferred against the petitioner. Concededly, the enquiry was held to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner, though after his retirement and he has been imposed a penalty of 1% cut in his pension for whole life. Fairness would demand that copy of the enquiry report is supplied to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. That would be essential to ensure the principles of natural justice. The submission that the copy of the enquiry report was required to be supplied in terms of Rule 7(6) only if some major penalty was to be imposed, would not impress me. Once the enquiry was held and an enquiry report prepared and is taken into consideration to impose the penalty on the petitioner, fairness would demand that copy of the said enquiry report is supplied to the petitioner before taking any action or before imposing any punishment. The submission that punishment is awarded after issuing show cause notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing would not be a good reason to deny the enquiry report as the petitioner would stand deprived of right to make submission to challenge the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. Even the opportunity of hearing appears to be a lip sympathy of a sort as the petitioner was heard by one officer whereas the order has been passed by another. Thus, the totality of the circumstances would show that the petitioner has not been given fair and proper opportunity to defend himself before imposing penalty of 1% cut in his pension for whole life. The impugned orders in both the writ petitions can not be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3080 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: sustained and are set-aside. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners from the stage where the enquiry report was to be supplied. The enquiry report be supplied to the petitioners and they be afforded an opportunity of hearing to defend themselves against the proposed punishment, if any. It will be open for the respondents to take any action in accordance with law. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. September 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE