C.W.P. No.8314 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8314 of 1989 Date of Decision:31.03.2010 Kaur Singh (through LRs) ........Petitioner Versus The Food Corporation of India, Punjab Unit through Regional Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation for either side. The case is of the year 1989 and the issue in this case is a challenge to a finding of Enquiry Officer on the ground that the Enquiry Officer's report had not been furnished and therefore, the principles of natural justice had not been complied with. The case had been originally dismissed for default on 29.04.2002 and by an application, it was subsequently restored. Having regard to the old age of the case and the issue which is involved addresses a pure legal position, I hasten to dispose of the case on the basis of records, although there is no representation for either side. 2. The order, which is impugned in the writ petition is an order of dismissal issued on 03.04.1987 by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India. The articles of charges referred to the lack of C.W.P. No.8314 of 1989 -2- absolute integrity and devotion to duty by his act in collusion with other co-officials that resulted in mal-practices, pilferage of wheat stocks and acts of financial impropriety. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheet had been served to the petitioner and an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The cryptic reply to the five detailed charges given was a single sentence denial that all the charges were baseless, unfounded and “ungenuine” (sic) and that he denied all the charges framed against him. After an elaborate enquiry, the report had been given to the Disciplinary Authority, who imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. It can be noticed that Enquiry Officer had given his report on 25.03.1987 and the order of removal came to be issued on 03.04.1987. 3. It is this order of dismissal that has been challenged in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the order of removal has been issued acting on the Enquiry Officer's report without affording to the petitioner an opportunity to show cause notice against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It has been held in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan 1991(1) SCT 111 that service of notice of the Enquiry Officer's report is an essential requisite of the principle of natural justice but this decision was explained in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. Vs. B. Karunakar etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that explained that the mere absence of service of show cause notice against the Enquiry Officer's report will not constitute a vitiation of the principles of natural justice but it C.W.P. No.8314 of 1989 -3- will have to be examined in the context of any particular prejudice which is shown to have been caused to the delinquent. The decision of the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar's case was again explained by a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs.Kailash Chndra Ahuja (2008) 9 SCC 31 where they have reiterated the principle that the failure to serve the Enquiry Officer's report itself will not mean offending principles of natural justice but a prejudice shall still to be shown by the party assailing it. The prejudice could be pointed out by a person with reference to the inherent defects in the Enquiry Officer's report or his findings or how if an opportunity had been granted those mistakes could have been pointed out, which would have had a bearing on the Punishing Authority's decision. No such attempt has been made in the writ petition. It has been stated in the reply by the Food Corporation of India that the FCI Staff Regulations Rules of 1971 themselves do not provide for the service of the Enquiry Officer's report before a final decision is taken. The Regulations are not before Court but I rest my decision on the fundamental legal position that in the absence of a prejudice shown by a non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner cannot assail the ultimate decision of the Disciplinary Authority to terminate the person from service. It is also contended in the written statement that there is a statutory provision for an intra-departmental appeal and the writ petition has been filed without resorting to the same. The case has stood down for 21 years and I do not think that consideration of the writ petition should be skirted on a technical plea and I have C.W.P. No.8314 of 1989 -4- rendered this decision on the substantial issue which has been taken by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition fails and the order of the Disciplinary Authority is sustained. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 31, 2010 Pankaj*