IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1860 of 2009-D. Decided on: 26.12.2011. ___________________________________________ Shri Subnesh Kumar son of Shri Gian Chand, resident of village Plar, Post Office Harabagh, Tehsil Joinder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Forest), Shimla-2. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Himachal Pradesh, Talland, Shimla-2. … Respondents. ________________________________________________ Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 1st February, 2006. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Petitioner filed reply to the same on 14th February, 2006. Shri Suneet Bhardwaj was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 24th April, 2009 against the proposed major penalty. The petitioner submitted reply to the same on 8th May, 2009. The disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner on 29th May, 2009. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the copy of inquiry report was required to be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make representation against the same by pointing out the shortcomings, deficiencies and infraction of the Rule of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 under which he has been charged. She then argued that the disciplinary authority without supplying the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner has provisionally come to the conclusion that major penalty is to be imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the disciplinary proceedings have been concluded in accordance with law and after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - 3 - 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The inquiry officer has submitted the report vide Annexure P-2. The copy of the inquiry report was required to be furnished to the petitioner to enable him to point out the shortcomings, deficiencies and infraction of Rules. It was only thereafter the disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioner to the inquiry report could make up its mind to impose the penalty. The petitioner is seriously prejudiced by the non-supply of the copy of inquiry report. 6. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Versus B. Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727 have held as under (para-29):- “Hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to - 4 - prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.” 7. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority without supplying the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner has provisionally come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and in these circumstances he has called upon the petitioner to file a representation. The disciplinary authority was required to supply copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the representation could impose the penalty. He could not pre-judge the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a detailed representation vide Ex.P-3 on 8th May, 2009. The disciplinary authority has also not taken into consideration the averments contained in the representation and has imposed the penalty of dismissal on 29th May, 2009. Once the representation has been made by the petitioner, the averments contained in the same were required to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. Merely stating that the representation has been seen is not the compliance of the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has neither passed the speaking nor a detailed order. It is settled law that the disciplinary authority is required to pass a detailed/speaking order since the same is appealable before the appellate authority. - 5 - 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-4 dated 29th May, 2009 is quashed and set aside. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 26, 2011. (sck).