CWP 869 of 2005. 14.8.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that Annexure PC, which is memorandum dated 28.4.2004 issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file his reply to the charges as framed against him, Annexure PL the inquiry report, Annexure PO, the punishment order passed on 17.8.2005 removing the petitioner from service and Annexure PP relieving the petitioner from his duties with effect from 18.8.2005 be quashed and set aside. A number of grounds have been taken up by the petitioner for challenging the action of the respondents. However, the entire factual matrix need not be considered, as the record shows that the petitioner has been denied a fair opportunity of defending his case. The record shows that the case after its first hearing on 24.11.2004 was fixed for 13.12.2004. The inquiry officer notes that the notice sent by registered AD and by special messenger informing the petitioner that the inquiry was to be held on that date had been received back undelivered. He thereafter proceeded with the -2- inquiry and recorded the statements of as many as six witnesses who were present on that date. Thereafter, on 7.1.2005, again the evidence of one more witness was recorded behind the back of the petitioner. On that date, when the petitioner appeared and requested in writing for supply of documents as asked for by him by his application Annexure PJ, no documents were supplied, although this application was received by the Inquiry Officer. Vide Annexure PK, the petitioner had also asked for examination of some witnesses. I had specifically asked the respondents to show to the Court as to whether the petitioner had been served for the first date of inquiry, that is 13.12.2004 when evidence was recorded against him. There is no record to show that he was in fact served or was made aware about the fact that the inquiry would be conducted on that day. There is also no record to show that on 7.1.2005, the petitioner was given an opportunity of cross examining other witnesses. In this view of the matter, the inquiry which has been conducted is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the consequential orders which have been passed cannot be sustained in law. Coupled with -3- the fact that the documents asked for by the petitioner herein were never supplied to him, shows that principles of natural justice have been violated in a blatant manner. The other aspects urged need not be gone into as these two factors itself vitiate the entire inquiry process and the punishment imposed thereafter. With the consent of the parties, the following order is passed: i) Parties are relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004. It will be open to the respondents herein to appoint a new inquiry officer in accordance with law; the petitioner will be deemed to be under suspension. ii) The petitioner herein will be given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses who have been examined against him on 13.12.2004 and subsequent to that date. For this purpose, it will be open to the respondents herein to have additional statement(s) of other witnesses recorded again; iii) The petitioner herein will be supplied the documents as asked for by him vide Annexure PJ (Item Nos. 1 to 26) or any other documents which he may demand. All such documents will be supplied to him before further proceedings are taken in the inquiry. The petitioner will be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. -4- iv) Annexure PC, which is memorandum dated 28.4.2004, Annexure PL the inquiry report, Annexure PO, the punishment order passed on 17.8.2005 removing the petitioner from service and Annexure PP relieving the petitioner from his duties with effect from 18.8.2005 are hereby quashed and set aside; v) The petitioner will submit to the respondents his address for the purposes of service of all notices/ communications so that there is no dispute regarding the correct address where the petitioner is to be served. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. August 14, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.