LPA No. 124 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 124 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Netar Pal ..Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another. ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) The appellant being unsuccessful in his challenge before the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18.11.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 20524 of 2010. The challenge in the writ petition, it may be noticed at this stage, was against an order 09.01.2001 by which the appellant-writ petitioner was terminated from service. The aforesaid termination was after holding of a departmental proceeding on specific charges of habitual absence from duties which were drawn up against the appellant-writ petitioner. In the course of the enquiry the appellant-writ petitioner had admitted the charges and prayed for a lenient punishment to be imposed upon him. LPA No. 124 of 2011 [2] Two main contentions have been advanced in the appeal. Firstly, it is contended that the provisions of Rule 8 (9) & (10) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules in Punjab & Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') have not been adhered to in acting upon the alleged admission of the appellant-writ petitioner. The second contention advanced is that a copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the appellant which has resulted in violation of the principle of natural justice. Rule 8 (9) and (10) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules in Punjab & Haryana are in the following terms:- “8 (9) :- If the Government employee who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of the defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government employee thereon. (10) The inquiring Authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government employee pleads guilty.” In the present case as is evident from the record, following the admission made by the appellant, the Inquiry Officer had recorded in his order the following observation:- “ The inquiry against Shri Netar Pal, houseman was fixed up for today. Shri Netar Pal, houseman, Hotel Mountview admitted the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and supporting documents levelled against him. He has stated that he has improved himself as he is continuously attending his duties till date since January,2000. LPA No. 124 of 2011 [3] He has further requested to take a lenient view in the matter and assured the management that he shall commit nothing such mistake in future. Since the charged official has admitted the charges, the inquiry is closed from both the sides.” The short question is whether the Inquiry Officer had adhered to the provisions of Rules 8 (9) & (10) of the Rules while proceeding against the appellant. Rule 8(9) makes it clear that on a plea of guilt having been made by the charge-sheeted government servant, the Inquiring Authority is required to record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the charge-sheeted officer. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer is required to return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the charge-sheeted officer had pleaded guilty. A perusal of the observations recorded by the Inquiry Officer extracted above would go to show that he had recorded the plea of guilt advanced by the delinquent and thereafter had closed the inquiry in view of the admission. The provisions of Rules 8 (9) & (10) would make it clear that what is required of the Inquiry Officer is to record the statement of guilt, have the same signed by the delinquent and thereafter arrive at a finding that the inquiry in respect of the charges admitted need not be held. If this is purport and effect of Rules 8 and 9, we fail to see how the observations recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the present case would not satisfy the said requirements of the Rules. Adherence to the procedure prescribed by the aforesaid Rules cannot be entrapped within any set parameters and LPA No. 124 of 2011 [4] so long as the Rule is substantially followed, the requirement imposed would be adequately satisfied. In so far as the inquiry report is concerned, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. Vs. B.Karunakar etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 makes it clear that omission to supply the inquiry report, by itself, will not vitiate the inquiry. Prejudice will have to be shown by the concerned employee before any such conclusion can be reached. In the present case when the employee had clearly admitted the charges levelled against him it is difficult to understand as to how any prejudice had been caused to him by non-supply of the inquiry report. The principles of natural justice do not operate in a void and have to be related to the facts and circumstances of the given case. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that this appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 24.01.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'