JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---Upset by the order dated 29-1-1992 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and rejection of his administrative appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner who was working as junior clerk in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol was served with the charge-sheet on 16-2-1991. The charges against the petitioner, in substance, were:

(i) He was directed to maintain daily-diary and to produce the same before the Presiding Officer. However, he neglected those directions and disobeyed the orders of the superiors;

(ii) He was habitual late-comer and inspite of warning there was no improvement;

(iii) He remained absent at the time of flag-hoisting ceremony on 15-8-1990 and

(iv) His behaviour with his co-workers was hostile.

The Inquiry Officer was appointed and after following reasonable procedure and giving the petitioner full opportunity of filing reply, production of documents and oral evidence, the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 30-7-1991 held that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. Though the petitioner prayed for supply of copy of Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority did not furnish copy of the said report, but along with the final order on 29-1-1992 awarding the punishment of dismissal from service, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded copy of Inquiry Report as well to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 29-1-1992, the petitioner appears to have filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2511/1992. This Court did not entertain the said writ petition and converted the same in administrative appeal and we are informed that the said administrative appeal was also rejected necessitating the filing of present writ petition.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, principally raised two contentions before us. His first contention was that in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in (Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan)1, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 471, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to furnish the Inquiry Report to the petitioner. Having not done that, the Rules of natural justice were violated and the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded adequate opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that denial of copy of Inquiry Report before dismissal order has caused tremendous prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. In support of this contention, Mr. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India others v. Mohd Ramzan Khan, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 471, and Five Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in (Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad, etc. etc. v. B. Karunkakar, etc. etc.)2, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1074. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that even if the charges levelled against the petitioner are held to be proved as has been found by the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority, the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate. According to Mr. Kshirsagar, for the charges proved; (a) that for the period of 18 days the petitioner failed to submit daily diary to the Presiding Officer; (b) that the petitioner was late for about 7 days in a span of two years and (c) that the petitioner was hostile to co-workers some times, the punishment of dismissal cannot be justified. Highlighting the principle of proportionality, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in (Union of India and another v. G. Ginayutham (Dead) by L.Rs.)3, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3387 and (On Kumar and others v. Union of India)4, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3689. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the aforesaid infirmities the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document