*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU +W.P.NO.9821 OF 1999 %18-01-2008 # Peddireddy Thimma Reddy Farm Foundation, Rep. by its Managing Trustere, P.Changal Reddy. … Petitioner Vs. $ The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District And another. … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE : ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri V.Srinivas ^ Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Panchayat Raj ? CASES REFERRED : 1. (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.9821 OF 1999 Between: Peddireddy Thimma Reddy Farm Foundation, Rep. by its Managing Trustere, P.Changal Reddy. .... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District And another. ....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.9821 OF 1999 O R D E R The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether furnishing of report of enquiry to the person to whom a show-cause notice for taking action is mandatory before passing a final order on that show-cause notice. 2. The petitioner, which was appointed as the Project Implementing Agency (PIA) to implement 12 watershed development programmes in Ranga Reddy District was supplied with guidelines, issued by Government of India and was directed to follow those guidelines for effective implementation of the watersheds and was given Rs.18.90 lakhs phases for execution of the works. On the ground that the petitioner committed some lapses in implementation of the watershed programmes, first respondent passed orders suspending the petitioner as PIA and appointed Mr.Syed Aziz Ahmed, Assistant Director of Agriculture as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into those lapses and submit his report within a month. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 28.12.1998 as to why it should not be dismissed as PIA and why prosecution cannot be launched against it for the irregularities mentioned therein. Through its letter dated 07.01.1999, petitioner while making a request for furnishing of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, sought extension of time by 15 days for submission of its reply. The said request of the petitioner was negatived on the ground that the show-cause notice was issued basing on the records maintained by it only. Thereafter, by the notice impugned dated 30.03.1999, the first respondent directed recovery of Rs.7,62,209/- said to have been misappropriated or mis-utilized by the petitioner from the petitioner and cancelled its appointment as PIA with immediate effect. Questioning the same the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. The main contention of Mr.V.Srinivas the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as held by the Apex Court in MOHD.QUARAMUDDIN (DEAD) BY LRS. V/s. STATE OF A.P.[1], furnishing of report of enquiry is a mandatory and as the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the petitioner in spite of its request, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that since the show-cause notice and also the final order also give all the details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner, which is aware of the irregularities alleged against it, and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered and as it was also afforded an opportunity of being heard, the proceedings impugned cannot be said to be vitiated for the mere failure to furnish a copy of the report of enquiry officer, petitioner was not put to any prejudice and contended that as the facts in MOHD.QUARAMUDDIN (DEAD) BY LRS. (1 supra) are different from the facts of this case, the ratio in that case is not applicable to this case, because the petitioner does have knowledge of the lapses committed by it. In reply, it is the contention of Mr.V.Srinivas is that mere giving an opportunity to submit an explanation and granting an opportunity of being heard would not cure the defect of the refusal to furnish the enquiry report. 4. In MOHD.QUARAMUDDIN (DEAD) BY LRS., case (1 supra) an employee was dismissed from service on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Commission without furnishing the report of the Vigilance Commission. So, the dismissed employee approached the Tribunal on the ground that failure to furnish a copy of the report of the Vigilance Commission caused prejudice to him. The Tribunal accepted his contention and held that as principles of natural justice were violated, the order dismissing him from service is liable to be set aside. That order was confirmed by the Apex Court on the ground that non-furnishing of a copy of the Vigilance Commission violates the principle of audi alteram partem, because the delinquent should know the basis on which the enquiry officer found against him. 5. The show cause notice and the final order impugned in this case show that they were issued basing on the report of enquiry. But merely because those documents contain the findings of the enquiry officer on the allegations made against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice are complied with. When the show-notice was prepared on the basis of the report of enquiry, and the final order also was passed only on the basis of the report of enquiry submitted by the Enquiry Officer, principles of natural justice require that report submitted by the enquiry officer should also be furnished to the person to whom the show-cause notice issued, so that he can know the basis on which the Enquiry Officer found against him, when he is asked to submit a reply. Without furnishing a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, he would not know the basis on which the enquiry officer found against him and so he cannot say why the report of the enquiry officer cannot be acted upon and also explain the grounds on which the observations made against him by the enquiry officer cannot be taken into consideration. 6. In this case the report of the enquiry officer admittedly was not furnished to the petitioner because the factum of non- furnishing of the report of the enquiry to the petitioner is admitted not only in the impugned order, but also in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent also. The case of the respondents is that inasmuch as the enquiry officer relied on the account books maintained by the petitioner non-furnishing of a copy of enquiry report of enquiry officer did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The enquiry officer allegedly relying on the records maintained by the petitioner cannot be a ground for upholding the order impugned, because the petitioner does not and in fact cannot be expected to, know what is contained in the report of the enquiry officer, which is not furnished to it. That apart, the factum of the enquiry officer relying on the records maintained by the petitioner does not clothe the respondents with a right to withhold the report from the petitioner and ask it to explain the reasons why that report cannot be accepted, because it can have no knowledge about the contents of the report. To explain, when a person accused of misappropriating the funds and maintaining false accounts, is subjected to enquiry and the enquiry officer submits a report, can a penalty be imposed on him without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and by giving a gist of the report of enquiry on the ground that as the person maintaining the records, he must be aware of the contents of the records maintained by him. The answer would be an affirmative no, because the reasons or grounds on which the enquiry officer found against him can be known only after going through the report of enquiry, and so, he can explain the grounds and reasons for which the report of enquiry cannot be accepted only when the report is furnished to him. So, non-furnishing of a copy of the report of enquiry officer did cause prejudice to the petitioner. 7. For the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed against the petitioner basing on the report of the enquiry officer insofar as it relates to the recovery of the amount from the petitioner is liable to be set aside and hence is set aside, because no useful purpose would be served by setting aside the entire order impugned inasmuch as the petitioner which was placed under suspension in the year 1998 was not entrusted with any work subsequent to cancellation of its authorization would not get any benefit by setting aside that part of the order also. 8. For the above reasons, the order impugned insofar as it relates to the direction for recovery of Rs.7,62,209/- from the petitioner is set aside. Respondents can, after furnishing a copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, can call for its explanation as to why that amount cannot be recovered from it. Within one month from the date of receipt of that notice along with a copy of the report from the respondents, the petitioner shall submit his explanation. Thereafter, the respondents can proceed further in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU 18th JANUARY, 2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/O)PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU W.P.NO.9821 OF 1999 18TH JANUARY, 2008 [1] (1994) 5 SUPREME COURT CASES 118