CWP (T) No. 2509 of 2008 2.3.2009 Present: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. for the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The inquiry report is dated 26.6.1993. However, copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. It was furnished to the petitioner, in fact, with office order dated 29.6.1993 whereby the petitioner was reduced in time scale of Rs. 1350-2600 by five stages by bringing him down from Rs. 1720 to Rs. 1530 for the remaining period of service. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. According to Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, a specific ground was taken in the appeal that copy of the inquiry report was to be supplied to the petitioner before imposition of the penalty. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 29.9.1994. The Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the ground taken by the petitioner that copy of the inquiry report ought to have been supplied before imposition of penalty. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan has strenuously argued that his client has been seriously prejudiced by non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report before the issuance of office order dated 29.6.1993. The legal submission made by Mr. Rajiv Jiwan is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity it the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary, authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it.” In fact, this legal position is not seriously disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. The petitioner ought to have been supplied copy of the inquiry report before imposition of penalty. The petitioner, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, has seriously been prejudiced by non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders, Annexures A-4 and A-7 are quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the State to start the proceedings after supplying the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to make representation against the inquiry report to point out the deficiencies/short-comings in the inquiry report and thereafter, taking into consideration, the representation made by the petitioner, suitable orders will be passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority is, however, directed to pass a speaking order after receiving the representation on the inquiry report furnished by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 2, 2009. (cr)