CWP(T) No.9182/2008 16.08.2010 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. B. Verma, Advocate, for the respondents According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the very same charge for which disciplinary proceedings stand initiated against the petitioner, an F.I.R. was registered and the Investigating Agencies filed a cancellation report before the appropriate Court. The same also stands accepted by the Court. 2. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure A-14). From the record it is evident that instead of supplying copy of the report and calling upon the petitioner to file his response the respondents straightway issued a memorandum dated 21.9.1999 (Annexure A-13), directly proposing to impose major penalty. The inquiry report was annexed with the said memorandum. 3. The Apex Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar (AIR 1994 SC 1074) has held that the delinquent official has a right to represent against the finding in the report before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the inquiry report. 4. Now in this case prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Had he been afforded with the opportunity of filing a response to the inquiry report, he would have brought the factum of filing of the cancellation report in relation to the F.I.R. registered with respect to the very same alleged offence/misconduct. This fact ought to have been considered by the respondent itself before memorandum dated 21.9.1999 was issued. 5. While passing the impugned orders imposing major penalty as also rejecting the appeal the authorities have not considered this aspect of the matter. The said orders are also cryptic and unreasoned. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated 21.9.1999 (Annexure A-13), 3.11.1999 (Annexure A-17), 2.3.2002 (Annexure A-19) & 23.11.2002 (Annexure A-23) are quashed. 7. Consequently, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of calling upon the petitioner to file response to the inquiry report, copy of which already stands supplied to the petitioner. The matter pertains to the year 1996. Hence, the respondents are directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 16, 2010 (rana)