IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No. 1316 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29.10.2009 in Writ Petition No.7487 of 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Rep. by its Commissioner, JagjevanNagar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand – 826 001. 2) The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1) A. Hanumantha Prasad s/o. Balarama Murty, aged 48 yrs, UDC, Regional Office, CMPFO, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist., 2) B. Srinivasa Rao s/o. Late Sriram Murty, Aged 43 yrs, UDC, Regional Office, CMPFO, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist., 3) P.L. Prasanna Kumar s/o. Someswar Rao, Aged about 48 yrs., UDC, Regional Office, CMPFO, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist. 4) M. Prakash s/o. Late Venkata Narsu, aged 49 yrs, UDC, Regional Office, CMPFO, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist., .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. J. PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondents: MR. SRINIVAS EMANI The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1) The appellants have challenged the validity of the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7487 of 2009. 2) The writ petition had been filed by the respondents - employees challenging the validity of the orders of dismissal passed against them on the ground that the enquiry report had not been furnished to them. 3) It is an admitted fact that the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioners employees and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the orders of dismissal, which had been challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has, however, given liberty to the appellants to proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry to the petitioners – employees. 4) It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that the petitioners were prejudiced on account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report. It has been specifically observed by the learned Single Judge that it was not known to the petitioners as to what allegations had been levelled against them and if the report of the enquiring authority had been furnished to them, possibly certain objections could have been raised, but the petitioners were denied the opportunity of raising their objections against the disciplinary proceedings as they were not furnished the copy of the enquiry report. 5) In view of the above facts also, non-furnishing of the enquiry report had caused prejudice to the petitioners and, therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. 6) Moreover, we have noticed that Rule 10 of Schedule III mentioned in Regulation 33 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 prescribes that a copy of the report of the inquiring authority should be furnished to the employee and a notice stating the action proposed to be taken should also be sent to the concerned employee. Rule 10 read as under: “(10) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Regulation 31 should be imposed, it shall – a) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority; and b) give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action.” 7) It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that no notice was issued to the respondents - employees calling upon them to submit their representation against the proposed action. 8) Thus, it would be clear that not only the principles of natural justice had been violated by non-furnishing of the report, even the statutory provision, which the appellants were supposed to follow, had also been violated. 9) In the afore-stated circumstances, submission of the learned advocate for the appellants that no prejudice had been caused to the respondents - employees by not furnishing the enquiry report cannot be accepted. 10) In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11) As a sequel to the dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No.2750 of 2009 is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ November 18, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }