IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 47 of 2008 (S/B) Dr. H.S. Kutola. .……… Petitioner Versus Lokayukta, Dehradun & others. .………. Respondents Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents Nos. 1, 7 & 8. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) During the course of hearing, the following sequence of facts have been narrated to us: Tota Ram Kukreti (respondent No. 8 herein) addressed a complaint dated 12.06.2003 to the Lokayukta, Dehradun, making allegations in respect of the working of the Dairy Development Department. It is pertinent to mention, that the afore-stated Tota Ram Kukreti was working as a Bus Conductor in the said Department itself. Based on the consideration of the afore-stated complaint dated 12.06.2003, certain recommendations were made by the Lokayukta, Dehradun, on 14.10.2005. Accordingly, Sri D.K. Gupta was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to hold a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations made by respondent No. 8, by an order dated 02.05.2006. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner was not invited to participate in the afore-stated fact-finding inquiry. Sri D.K. Gupta (the Inquiry Officer) submitted his report, consequent upon the fact-finding inquiry conducted by him, on 29.06.2006. The Director, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand, (respondent No. 4 herein) issued a show-cause notice dated 30.11.2006 to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause why a recovery of Rs. 4,417.76 be not made from him on account of losses caused to the Department because of inappropriate handling of milk products. The petitioner, through his communication dated 31.01.2007, submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, denying the allegations levelled against 2 him, as also his liability to reimburse the loss caused to the Department. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner expressly invited this Court’s attention to the fact, that no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by any authority whatsoever prior to the issuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 30.11.2006. It is further pointed out, that the petitioner was never summoned to participate in the fact-finding inquiry, conducted by Sri D.K. Gupta. This submission was made on account of the fact, that it was the report of the aforesaid Sri D.K. Gupta dated 29.06.2006, which had prompted the Director, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand, to issue the show-cause notice dated 30.11.2006 to the petitioner. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner never participated in the aforesaid fact-finding inquiry conducted by Sri D.K. Gupta. As such, it is pointed out, that the petitioner was sought to be penalised on the basis of proceedings conducted at his back. 2. Having considered the reply furnished by the petitioner dated 31.01.2007 to the show-cause notice dated 30.11.2006, the Director, Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand, by his order dated 24.09.2007, directed that a sum of Rs. 4,417.76 be recovered from the petitioner, towards losses suffered by the Dairy Development Department for the period from 02.03.2004 to 31.03.2006. 3. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the impugned order dated 24.09.2007 had adverse civil consequences. It is, therefore, pointed out, that before the aforesaid order came to be passed, it was imperative for the respondents to require the petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings, conducted in respect of the matter in hand, so as to enable the petitioner to repudiate the statements made by persons, who appeared before Sri D.K. Gupta (the Inquiry Officer), by cross-examining them, as also to enable him to lead his own evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence thereof, it is submitted, that the action taken by the respondents, should be deemed to be in violation of the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, and as such, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3 4. The factual position, as has been narrated herein above, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. In view of the above, it is apparent, that the entire inquiry proceedings, on the basis of which the petitioner has been penalised requiring him to reimburse a sum of Rs. 4,417.76, have been held at his back, without affording him the right to controvert the statements made before the Inquiry Officer by cross-examining the witnesses examined, as also without affording him an opportunity to project his own defence. We are satisfied, that there is merit in the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before any order, affecting the civil rights of an individual, can be passed, it is expected of a competent authority to follow the rules of natural justice by informing the concerned individual, the charges levelled against him, as also by affording him an opportunity to represent his position. 6. In the facts noticed herein above, it is apparent, that the mandatory procedure required to be followed in a matter of the nature in hand, was not adopted by the competent authority. The impugned order dated 24.09.2007, directing a recovery of Rs. 4,417.76 from the petitioner, is thus liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Since the impugned order dated 24.09.2007 has been set aside by us on account of a procedural lapse at the hands of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents states, that liberty be afforded to the respondents to initiate a proper inquiry against the petitioner on the same cause of action. We find merit in the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. We, therefore, allow the respondents, if they are so advised, to reinitiate the process in accordance with law. However, before the respondents choose to initiate such an action, it will be imperative for the respondents to consider the report of a three members’ Committee, headed by the Chief General Manager of the Dairy Development Department, Uttarakhand, which submitted the same on 31.12.2007, and on the basis whereof, the Lokayukta, Dehradun, having reconsidered the entire matter, had dropped the complaint filed by Tota Ram Kukreti (respondent No. 8 herein) dated 12.06.2003, vide an order dated 31.03.2008. 4 7. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 10.02.2010 10.02.2010 G 5