- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2673/2005 (Hakim Khan vs. Sirohi Central Coop.Bank & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 12/5/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the respondent. In this case petitioner is challenging the validity of order of dismissal dated 3/1/2005 (Annex.4) and impugned order dated 21/3/2005 (Annex.7) passed by the appellate authority. The main contention of petitioner is that before passing the impugned order of dismissal by the disciplinary authority, copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him which is mandatory as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1991 (1) SCC 588 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan) in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that delinquent employee against whom departmental inquiry is initiated is entitled to copy of inquiry report submitted by inquiry officer to disciplinary authority and to make representation against it. Further it is held that non-furnishing of the inquiry report to the delinquent would be violative of principle of natural justice rendering the final order invalid. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the disciplinary authority for dismissal of services of petitioner - 2 - deserves to be set aside. Further it is submitted that order of appellate authority also deserves to be set aside on the ground that said authority has not applied its mind towards grounds taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that orders impugned are also required to be quashed on the ground that they are totally non-speaking order and do not bear independent finding either by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 3/1/2005 or by the appellate authority in its order dated 21/3/2005. Upon perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 3/1/2005 (Annex.4) it is apparent that this order has been passed without supplying copy of inquiry report and without assigning any reason for conclusion of guilt, and without any independent finding by the disciplinary authority, therefore, in my opinion, the order of disciplinary authority dated 3/1/2005 (Annex.4) and order passed by appellate authority dated 21/3/2005 are deserves to be quashed. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The - 3 - impugned order dated 3/1/2005 (Annex.4) passed by the Managing Director of respondent Bank and order passed by the appellate authority dated 21/3/2005 (Annex.7) are set aside and case is remitted to the disciplinary authority with a direction to supply copy of inquiry report to the petitioner and to grant him an opportunity to file representation against it, and petitioner is also directed to file representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of inquiry report, if he so desires. After filing representation by the petitioner against the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority is directed to pass fresh order after considering entire evidence and the grounds taken by the petitioner in his representation by speaking order. Further, it is made clear that petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order of disciplinary authority in accordance with Rules, if the disciplinary authority again passes any adverse order against him. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja