73 J CWR No 16485of2010 4n IN TI HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWR N016485 of2010 DATEOFDECISION 19eS0ioll tr DrGajanand Aggarwal PETITIONER 0 0 VERSUS I C9 State RESPONDENT Z tr CORAM HOiVBLE MRJUSTICE MAHESH GROVER I 3 Z Present ShriRlCMalik SeniorAdvocate wRhShri Krishan KChahal Advocatefor thepetitioner tD ShriSunilNehra SeniorDAG Haryana 7 Z 0m MAHESH GROVER J The petitioner byvirtue of theinstantpetition prays for the issuance of a writ in thenaturecerliorarito quashthe orderdated2312762010Annexure Pe9bywhichthepetitioner has beendismissedfromservice He 81nherpraysthat hebereinstatedwithout benets The petitionerhavingjoinedas a Medical Officer in 1981 was on regular basis a8er due selectionby the HaryanaPublic Service Commissionin November1985 r Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 CW N016485 of2010 e2 He was servedwith a charge sheeton 1912005 for havingviolated theprovisions of Pre NatalDiagnostic TechniquesRegulation and PreveOtionof MisuselAct 1994 PlllDT Act9and an ELR was alsoregistered againsthim for thesaidoffencein which hewas In themeantimethe enquiryalso proceededagainsthim He pleadedwith the that the enquirybe dropped in view of the fact that he has been 1 in thecriminal But the enquiryproceeded 0 andeventually he was indictedin theenquiryHe was issueda showcause notice 0 on 2672007 which alsohad thecopy ofthe enquiryreportattachedalongwith it I C5 The petitioner submitted a detailed replyto the show causenotice and he was 3C givena personalhearingby thethenSecretary of the concemed on Z 6 2007 but before she could pass an order she stood transfenedand was 2 0 replaced by the presentincumbentwho has passedtheimpugned order without I hearing the petitionerThe petitioner thus stands dismissedfrom servicevide 3 orderdated2312762010 Z His cause of grievance is twofold that there has been complete CO violation ofthe principles whichis evidentfromthefollows Z Al Thatbyvirtueof Annexure P even thoughhe was askedto submit his replyto the proposed action againsthim the Financial Commissioner8c PrincipalSecretary to the Govemmentof Haryana had pre4udged the 1SSueby agreeing withtheconclusion reachedbytheEnquiryOfOcer The contentionthus 1S thatsince this was the notice with which he was suppliedwith the enquiry reportan efTective to meet the findingsof the enquiryofOcer stood lost in view of its of theissue bythecompetentauthorityReliance was Placedon a decisionrenderedbya Dhlision Bench ofthis Court in Ramesh K v StateofHarvanaandothers200641 RSJ 236 6B1 After the receiptof the replyof the petitioner to this show cause Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 CWR No6485 of2010 3 noticeAnnexure P5 he was granted an opponunity of personaIhearingbythe thenSecretarybut beforeshe could passan order she was transferredandthe presentincumbentpassedthe order without affording him any personalhearing and even if the personnel hearingivenby oneoftlcer hasbeentakento be an of hearingthen the standvitiated as such a hearinghasno meaning in the eyesof law Reliance was placedon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Niwas Bansal v State Bank of Patialaand 1 another 199831RSJ 1 0 The on theother hand have set up up thep1eathatdue 0 oofhearingwas givento the petitionerHe was suppliedwith the I C5 enquiryreportandgivenan to submithis replyupon which he was I givena personalhearingwhich is not even underthe rules and Z therefor 110 is causedto him and in the absenceof violation of procedure even if establiShedcannot be construed to be a violation of the I of naturaljustice Theycontendedthat Rule 9 of the HaryanaCivil L ServicesPunishmentandAppeallRulesdoesnot visualizethe grantof personal Z hearing andthus to say thatthe personalhearing was givenby an authority other m than theone who passed fheimpugned order cannot be termedto be theviolation me Z of the principlesof naturaljustice Extensivereliance was placedon the judgments of the Honb1eSupremeCourt in Canara Bank and others v Shri DebasisDass and others 200341SCC557 PD AggarwalV State Bank of India and others 200689SCC 776and a Division Bench judgment of this Coun in ParveenGoel v PuniabtechnicalUniversitvJalandharand others 2007 S1R 458 I haveheardthe leamedcounselfor the partiesand perusedthe materialon record On due considerationof thenatter I proceedto determinethe Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 CWR Nol6485 of2010 4 To evaluatewhetherthereis anyviolationof theprinciples of natural justiceit would be necessaryto advertto the positionof law as it exlStStodaYe TheHonble Supreme Court in Canam Bank andothersv Shri DebasisDassand otAe 200341SCC557 hasobservedas follows 14 Residual and crucjal questionthat remainsto be a4udicated is whetherprinciples of naturaljusticehave been violated and if so what extent any prejudicehas been 3 1 caused It maybe notedat thisjuncture thatin some cases it 0 has been obsetvedthatwiheregrantof in terms of 0 principlesof naturaljusticedo not improvethe situation I C5 useless fonnalitytheolycan bepressed into service I 15 Naturaljusticeis anothername for common sense Z justiceRulesof naturaljustdce are not codiOedcanons But theyare principlesingrainedinto the conscience of man I Naturaljusticeis the administrationof justicein a common L2 sense liberal way Justiceis based on natural Z idealsand humanvalues The administrationofjustice1Sto OO be freedfrom thenarrow andrestrictedconsiderationswhich 7 Z are usuallyassociated with a formulatedlaw involving ll linguistictechnicalitiesand gratical niceties It is the substanceofjusticewhichhas to detennineits fonn 16 The natur justiceand legaljusticedo not presenta It is thesubstanceof justicewhich is to be securedby both and wheneverlegal justicefails to achievethissolemnpurpose naturaljustice1S ca11edin aid of legaljusticeNaturaljusticerelieveslegal justicefrom unnecessary pedantry or Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 CW Nol6485 of2010 5 logical It suppliesthe omissions of a formulatedlaw As Lord Buckmastersaid no form or procedure shouldever bepermiued to excludethe ofa litigants defence 18 Principles of naturaljusticeare thoseruleswhich have beenIaid down bytheCourtsas beingtheminimumprotection 1 of the rightsof the individual againstthe arbitraryprocedure 0 that may be adoptedby a judicial and 0 administrativeauthority whilemaking an orderaffecting those I C5 rightsTheserulesare intendedto preventsuchauthority from I doinginjustice Z 19 What is meant bythetenn principles of naturaljustice 2 C is not easy to determine Lord SummerthenHamilton Ll l I in Rayve Local GmlernmentBoar191411 KB 160at p19 83 LJKB 869describedthe phraseas sadlylackingln Z precision In General Council of Medical Education 8 Q0 Regtration ofUKe ve Sanchmal1943 AC 627 1 34812 w Z All ER 3371Lord Wrightobservedthatit was not desirableto Il attempt to forceit into any bed andmentioned that one essentialrequiement was that theTribunalshouldbe impartial and haveno personal interestin the controversyand Airtherthatit shouldgivea full and fair opponunity to every partyofbeingheard 20 Lord Wrightrefened to the leadingcases on the subject The most iortant of them is the Board of Education ve Rice 1911 AC 179 80 LJKB 7961whereLord Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document eee 78 0 CWR Nol6485 of2010 6 Loreburn LC observedas followsl Comparatively recent statutes haveextendedif they have or originatedthe practiceof imposingupon or oftlcesof Statethedutyof deciding or questions of various kinds It will I supposeusuallybe of an administrative kind but L sometimesit will involve matter of law as weIl as 0 matter of facts or even dependupon matterof law U 8lone In suChcases the Board of Educationwill have I C5 to ascertainthe law and a1s0to ascertainthe facts I I neednot andthat1ndoingeither theymust act in good Z faith and fairlylisten to both sides for that is a duty lyinguponeveryonewho decidesanythingBut l do not think theyare boundto treat such a question as t3 though it were a trial The Boardis in thenature of Z the arbitnil tribunal and a Court of Iaw has no m jurisdiction to hear appealsfrom the detennination 7 Z either upon 1aw or upon fact But if the Court is satisfiedeither that theBoardhave not actedjudicially in the way I have describedor havenot determinedthe V questionwhich they are requiredby the Act to determinethen thereis a remedyby mandamusand certiorarr Lord Wrightalso from the same decisionthe observationsof the Lord Chancellor that the Board can obtaininfonnationin anywaytheythinkbest 8lways giving a fair to thosewho are parties to thecontroversy for 1 Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 0 CWP N016485of2010 e oor any relevantstatement prejudicial totheirview To the same eHectare theobservationsofEari ofSelboumeLO in Spackman ve PlumsteadDistrict Board of Works 985101AC 229 1 54 LJMC 811wherethe learnedand nobleLord Chancellorobservedas follow No doubt in theabsence of specialprovisions as to 1 howthepersonwho is to decideis to proceedlaw will 0 imply no more thanthatthesubstantial of 0 I justiceshall not beviolated He is not a judgein the t5 proper sense ofthe worbut he must givethe panies I an of beingheardbeforehim and stating Z their case andtheirviewIe must givenotice whenhe 2 will proceedwith the matter and he must act honestly I and impartially and not under the dictation ofome otherpersonior personsto whom theauthority is not Z givenby law Theremust be no malversationof any m kind Therewould be no decisionwithin the meaning 7 Z of the statuteif there were anything of that son done contrary to theessence ofjustice Lord Selboume a1s0 added that the essence of justice consisted in requiringthat all partiesshould have an of submitting to the personby whose decision theyare tobe bound such considerations as in oughtto bebrought beforehim All these cases laydown the veryimportant rule of naturaljusticecontainedin the oRe quoted phrase justiceshouldnot onlybe done butshouldbe seento be donel Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 0 CWR N016485 of2010 8 21 of naturaljusticehas undergone a greatdeal of change 111recentyears Rules of naturaljusticee not rules embodiedalwaysexpressly in a statute or in rules framedthereunderTheymay beimpliedfrom the nature of thedutyto be undera statute What panicular rule of natural justiceShouildbe impliedand what its context m r shouldbe in a givencase must depend to a greatextent on the 0 fact and circumstancesof that case the frameeworkof the 0 statute underwhich theenquiryis held The old distinction I C5 betweena judicialact andan administrativeact has withered awayEven m administrativeorder which involves civil Z must be consistentwith the rules of natural tr justice civil consequencesencompasses I infraction of not merelypropertyor personalrightsbut of civil liberties material and nonlecuniary Z In its wideumbrellacomes everything thataffectsa co citizen in hiscivil life m5 Z Il 24 What is known as useless formalitytheoryhas receivedconsiderationof this Court in ACMehta v Union of India 199901RCRCivill 652 SCl 99961SCC 2371 lt was observedas underl Before we go into thefinal aspectof this contention we would like to state that case relatingto breach of natur81justiced6 also occur whereall facts are not admitted or are not all beyond disputel considerable caseelawand literatureas to whetherrelief can be Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 0 CWP No6485 of2010 9e re6isedeven if the Coun thinksthat the case of the applicant is not one of real substanceor thatlere is no substantialpossibilityof his successor that the resultwill not be different even if naturaljusticeIS followed Similarlyin PAggarwal V StateBank ofIndia and others2006 1 t 8l SCC76 it was observedbytheHonbleSupreme Courtas follows 0 The principIesof natural justicecannot be put tn a 0 formula It must be seen in circumstantial C5 flexibilityIt has separatefacets It has in recent timealso I a sea Change Z 21 In Ajit Kumar Nagv General ManagerPJI Indian 2 Oil CorpnLtd Haldia Ors 20041 SCT 341 200597 I SCC 76 a Benchofthis Courtopined l C0 We are aware of the normal rule that a person must Z have a fair trial and a fair appealand he cannotbe m asked to be satis6edwith an unfair trial and a fair 7 Z appealWe are alsoconsciousof thegeneralprinciple that hearingis betterandshouldaIways bepreferred to hearingWe are irther aware that it hasbeenstatedthat apartfrom Laws of Ivlen Laws ofGod alsoobservetheruleofaudi alteram partem It has been stated that the first hearingin humanhistory was givenin theGarden of Eden God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before givingan to showcause as to whytheyhad eatenUle forbiddenfruit 6SeeR v of r Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 0 CWR Nol6485 of2010 10 But we are also aware that the of naturaljusticeare not rightor immutableandhence they cannot beimprisoned in a Theymust yieldto andchangewithexigencies of situationsThey mustbe confined within their Iimits and cannot be allowedto run wild It hasbeenstatedTo do a great Ct rightaftera11it is sometimesto do a little 0 wrongPerMukharjiCJ in Charan Lal Sahu V 0 Union of India BhopalGasDisaster SCCp05 para I C 1241 While legalprovisionsa court of I lawcannotlbeunmindfulofthe hardrealitiesoflife In Z our opinlOll theapproach of the Court in dealingwith suchcases shouldbe pragmatic rather thanpedantic I realisticrather than doctrinaire functional rather than forml andpractical ratherthan Z In CanaraBank8corsl Debasisc or 20021SCT 10 481 200314 SCC 557 this Court refeued to the m Z doctrinestating1Additionally there wasno tl rnaterialplacedbythe employee to show as to how he has been prejudicedThoughin all cases the post decisionalhearingcannot be a substitutefor pre decisionalhearingin the case at hand theposition 1S different 24 However thecontentionof Mrao that onlybecausea copyof theenquiryreportwas not 61mishedto theappellant bythe therehasbeena violationof the provisionsof the cannot a1s0be Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 0 CWR Nol6485 of2010 1 for the reasons statedhereinafter 26 Decisionof this Court in SeLeKapoor v Jagmohan and others 198014 SCC 379 whereupon Mrao placed strong relianceto contendthatnolobservanceof principleof naturaljusticeitself causes or the same shouldnot beread as it causes difficulty ofprejudicecannot be saidto 0 be in the instant case The principles of natural 0 I justiceas noticedhereinabovehas a sea change C5 In view of the decisiIonof thisCourtin StateBank of Patiala I 8 ors v SKShanna 199621SCT 568 99613 SCC 3641 Z and RajenderaSinghv Stateof M 619969 5 SCC 460 the Z principle of law is thatsome realprejudice musthavebeen I causedto the The Court has shiftedfrom its t earlierconceptthat evena small violationshall resultin the Z orderbeingrendereda nullityTo theprincipaldoctrineof m audi 8lterampartema clear distinctionhasbeen laid down 7 Z betweenthe cases wheretherewas no hearing at all andthe m cases wheretherewas mere technical of the principalThe Court applies the principles of naturaljustice havingregard to thefactsituationobtaining in eachcase It is not appliedin a vacuum without referenceto the relevant 1 factsand circumstancesof the case lt is no unrulyhorse It cannotbeputin a fonnula 27 In Union of lndia Ee anr Ve 1IWsiRam Patel 19859 Supp2SCR 131 19851 3 SCC 398 againMrRao placedstrongreliance thisCourt did not laydown a law 111 Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 0 CWP Nol6485 of2010 e12m absolute terms that violationof principleof naturaljustice wouldbe read into theequality clause containedin Article 14 of theConstitutionof India The said decision was rendered having regardto thefactthatbytakingrecourse to thesecond proviso appended to Article 311 of Constitution of India 110 was to be initiatedat a11andan order 1 of dismissalcould be passedonlyon the basisof subjective 0 satisfaction of theauthority to dismissor remove 0 or to reducehim in rank whereforreason was to be I C5 recordedbyit in writingthat it was not practicable I to hold a proceedingThe facetsof the principle Z of naturaljusticewas consideredin some detailsin State Bank of Patiala 8 ors v SlCSharma 19961 SCC 364 I supralwhereinthis Court held UNow comingback to the illustration givenby US 111 Z thepreceding para wouldsettingasidethe Cn and the entireenqiry on the groundof aforesaid m0 Z violationofsulclause iiil be in theinterestsofjustice Il or would itbei negation2 In it wouldbe the latterustice means justicebetween both the palties The interests of justiceequally demandthat the guiltyshould be punished and that technicalitiesand which do not occasion failureof justiceare not allowed to defeattheendsof justicePrinciplesof naturaljusticeare but the means toachievetheendsofjusticeTheycannot be to achievethe very oppositeend That would be a Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 0 CWP Nol6485 of2010 13 exercise It was opinedthatin an case the saidrightcould alsobe walved stating If it is found that he has been so prejudiced orders have to be made to repairand the prejudiceincludingsettingaside the 1 andlortheorderof If no prejudice 0 is establishedto haveresultedtherefromit is obvious 0 no interferenceis calledfor In thisconnection it may I C5 be rememberedthat there may be certain 32 which are of a fundamentalcharacter Z whoseviolation is by itself proofof prejudiceThe Q Court may not insist on proofof prejudice in such I cases L It was rtherheld l Z Where the enquiryis not govemedby any rulesl rll provisions andtheonly e Z is to observetheprinciples of naturaljustice or for Qm that matter whereversuch principlesare held to be impliedby the very nature and impactof the orderlaction theCourt or the Tribunalshould makea distinctionbetweena totalviolationof naturaljustice rule of audi alterampartem9and violationof a facet of the said rule as explained lll the bodyof the In other words a distinctionmust be made between no and no adequate ie between no noticeIno hearingand Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 0 CWP No 16485of2010 14 no fairhearing aI In thecase of former theorder would be invalid le mayca11it void or a nullityif one chooses tol In such cases libertywill be reservedfor the Authority to take afresh accordingto law lee lll accordance with the said rule ldi alteramparteml 151 But in thelattercase the eHectof violation a 0 facetof the rule oofaudi alteram partem9 has to be 0 examined tlom thestandpointof prejudicein other 9 C5 wordswhat theCourt or Tribunalhasto see is whether I 111the totalityof the circumstances the delinquent Z did or did not have a fair hearing and C theordersto be madeshalldepend upon theanswer to I thesaidquery 28 It is not a case where therehadbeena gross violation Z of of naturaljusticein the sense no disciplinary m was initiatedat all or no hearing was given 7 Z In CanraraBank 8e ors suprala Division Bench of this Qm Couttheld 1 It is to be notedthat at no stagetheemployee pleaded Both leamedSinie JudgeandtheDivision Bench proceeded on the basis that there was no with the of Regulation 6 and thereforeprejudice was caused In view of the flndingrecordedsupra that Regulation 6181has not beencorrectly the conclusions are indefensible ts Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 0 CWP N016485 of2010 5e Even in ManagingDirector ECIL Hyderabad OYS K Karunakar ors 1994611SCT 319 19931 4 SCC 727 thisCourtclearlyheld 1 46 The theoryof reasonable and the principlesof naturaljusticehave been evolved to upholdthe ruleof law and to assistthe individualto 1 r vindicatehis justrightsTheyare not incantationsto be 0 invoked nor rites to be on all and sundry 0 I occaslons Whetherin fact prejudice hasbeencaused C5 to theemployee or not on account of the denialto him I of the reporthas to be consideredon the factsand Z circumstances of each case Where therefore even a8er the of the report no different I would have followed it woulcoe a t3 perversion ofjusticeto permitthe to resume Z dutyand to get all the benets Jt 00 amountsto rewarding the diShonestandthe guiltyand 7 Z thusto stretching theconceptofjustice to illogicaland 0m limits lt amounts to an unnatural expansionof natwraljustice whichr in itself is antitheticalto justice It was furtheropined 44 If afterhearingthe partiesthe CourtlTribunal comes to the conclusionthat the nolsupplyof the reportwouldhave madeno differenceto theultimate findings andthe giventheCourtlTribunal shouldnot interferewiththeorder The Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document M 88 C3 44 CeWPe Nol6485 of2010 6 CourtlTribunalshouldnot set aside the orderof on thegroundthatthe reportwas not 61rnishedas is beingdoneat present Thecourts shouldavoidresorting to shoncuts Sinceit lS the Courtbunal which will applytheirjudicial mind to the questionand givetheirreasons for setting i tr asideor not setting asidetheorderofpunishmentnd 0 not any internalappellate or revisionalauthorityl there 0 would be neither a breachof theprinciples of natural I C5 justice nor a denialofthe reasonable It is I onlyif theCourtlTribunalfinds that thefumishing of Z the reportwould have madea differenceto theresultin the case that it should set aside the order of Z Thus it is amplyclearfromtheaforxtracted obseations ofthe CO Honble Supreme Court that it is essentialto establishand demonstratethe 7 Z causedto thepersonwho claimstheviolationof rule of audialtenm Qm paitemand thus theprinciples of naturaljustice Havingnoticedas above thefirst contentionofthe leamedcounsl for the petitioner is to be evaluated Rule 70f the HaryanaCivil Service Punishmentand Appeal9Second Amendment Rules 2007 is extractedhere belowl 760 ARer the enquiryagainst a Govt employee hasbeen thedisciplinary authority 5ha11forwardor cause tobe forwardeda copyof theenquiryreportandwherethe authority doesnot agreewith theenquiryrepon Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t 89 7 O CWR No16485 of2010 7 or anypartthereof thereason for such shall be communicatedalon with theeqnuirvrepon to theGovt emploveewho mav submit if he so desires a written reDresentation to the disciplinarvauthoritywithin a period ofone monthRomthedateofsuch communication 79 The disciplinaryauthoriolshall consider the 1 0 if any submittedbytheGovt employee and recordits Ondingbeforeproceeding furtherin the mauer as 0 40 specitled in rule4 I C5 I Z Prior to the rule as it existstodaythe unamendedprovision 1Sas fo110ws C4 61 Afler theinquiryagainst a Govemmentemployee has I been completedand a8er the punishingauthorityhas Z arrived at a provisional conclusionin regard to thepenalty to 00 be imposedthe Govemmentemployee shall if the penalty awo to beimposed is majorpenaltybesuppliedwith a copy of Z 0 thereportofenquiringauthority and be calledupon to show Om cause within reasonabletime not ordinarilyexceeding one monthagainsttheparticular pen8ltyproposed to be inOicted uponhim Any submittedby him in this b6halfsh11 be taken into considerationbeforefinal orders passed Provided that if the punishingauthoritydisagrees with any part or whole of the findingsof the authoritythepointor pointsof such together Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 0 CW P No16485 of2010 e18 with a brief statementof the groundthereof shall also be supplied to theGovemmentemployee AnnexureP5 is thenotice whiChwas issuedto thepetitioner along with a copyofthe enquiryreport Ifthe language ofthis notice is to beseen then the competentauthorityproceeded to state even before the replycould be 1 submittedby thepetitionerbyway of objections to the enquiryreportthathe 0 agreedwith the conClusionreachedby the enquiryofficer that the charges 0 levelledagainsthim stoodprovedTo this it is necessaryto produce C5 thelanguage of Annexure l I On carefillconsiderationof theenquiryreport I agreewith Z theconclusionreachedbythenauirvofOcerthat thecharges levelledagainstyou standproved I am provisionallyof the opinionthat a penaltvof dismissalfrom service be imposed I uponyou Beforethe aboveactionis t8ken you are givenan Z of showing cause againstthe proposed action Cll Any which you may like to make in that meo connectionwill be taken into consideration before the Z proposed action is taken Such if any should Il be made in writingand sbmitted within 15 daysfrom the rece ofthis communicMionbyyOU In the consideredopinionof this Coun the competentauthority committeda grave error in thefindings of theenquiryreportwithout even theobjections Oledbythe petitionerIt is not disputed at this stagethatthepetitioner was supplied with a copy of theenquiryreponfor the flrst timeandaskedto submithisreplyIfthe issuealready stood then Parkash Om 2014.06.16 12: 16 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 O cWPNo16485 0f2010 9 it hasnegated the very oconcept oof5ludi alterampartemand theprinciples of naturaljustice A Division Bench of this Court in RameshKumar v State of Harvanaand others200641RSl 236 observedas f0110ws 5 It is thus bvious that the inquiryreportwas not Alrnishedto the petitioner beforeapplyingits mind by the authority to theOndings recordedbythe enquiry 1 oftlcer A ConstitutionBenchof theHonble Supreme Coun rl in the case of ManagingDirector ECIL v3arunakar 0 0 99341SCC 727 hasheOdthat sucha course is not opento I 9 the authori andthe Iaw requires shingof I aninquiryreportto a delinquent employee in cases wherethe Z oOlcer and disciplinary authority are two different entitiesso as to provide an of hearing to the employeeln para Nos29 and 300vl of the r C thefollowingobservationshave beenmadewhich Z areextractedbelow l Cr C0 Hence it hasto be heldthat when theenquiryofOcer 7 is not the authoritythe Z employee has a rightto receivea copy of the inquiry Om ofllcersreportbefore6hedisciplinary authority auives at