Disciplinary authority must supply enquiry report to employee before forming punishment opinion; failure breaches natural justice without needing prejudice proof; proceedings remanded for compliance.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a relief that the punishment of compulsory retirement dated 28 March, 2011 imposed on the petitioner by the appellate order, be quashed and set aside and for a further relief that the respondents be directed to hold and declare that the prior orders dated 30 March, 2009 issued by respondent no. 3 and order dated 7 November, 2009 issued by respondent no. 2, terminating the petitioner’s service be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated on the post of Assistant Security Officer with all consequential benefits. The substantive prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted, which reads thus:

“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to produce the record and proceedings relating to the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement dated 28/3/2011 (Exhibit A Hereto) and after going through the legality and validity thereof, be further pleased to quash and set aside the same.

b) that this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction tot he respondents to hold and declare that the orders dated 30/3/2009 issued by the respondent no. 3 (Exhibit ‘X’) and orders dated 7/11/2009 issued by respondent no. 2 (Exhibit ‘Y’) are quashed and set aside and further order the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner in his post of Assistant Security Officer with immediate effect;

c) that this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to hold that the petitioner be deemed to be in continuous service and with all consequential benefits, back wages and continuity of service from the date of order of removal from service issued by respondent no. 3 (Exhibit ‘X’ hereto).

2. The relevant facts are required to be noted: The petitioner joined the service of Mumbai Port Trust, which is arrayed as respondent no. 2. The petitioner was suspended from service in contemplation of Departmental Enquiry in 2003. However, on 28 September, 2004 the petitioner was reinstated in service. In this backdrop, the petitioner stated that another charge sheet was issued by the respondents containing eight Articles of charges, which are required to be noted:

“ARTICLE I: Shri Shinde did not inform his superiors about the raid conducted by the officials of ACB at his residence at Nerul in July, 2003. By committing the above misconduct, Shri Shinde has violated Regulation 3(1) of MbPT Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976.

ARTICLE II: Shri Shinde, being and Assistant Security Officer, failed to follow proper procedure of lodging police complaint when he came to know about the illegal activities of S/Shri Narsing Modi, Shaka Babu, Suleman, Rajaram,and one lady named Lalhan Banu alias Telwali Bhabi.

By committing the above misconduct, Shri Shinde has violated Regulation 3(1A) (i) of the MbPT Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.

ARTICLE III: Shri Shinde proceeded on leave to his native place from 12th June 1998 to 17th June, 1998 without ensuring that his leave has been sanctioned by leave sanctioning authority.

By committing the above misconduct, Shri Shinde has violated Regulation 3(1A) (ii) of the MbPT Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976.

ARTICLE IV: (1) During the 2nd shift of 21st July 2003, Shri hinde