The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide relevant documents to the delinquent employee for defense during departmental enquiry proceedings, as mandated by Rule 14 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 15/05/2017 (Annexure P/1).

iii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 11/10/2013 (Annexure P/2).

iv. To kindly direct the respondents to grant full salary of the entire period to the petitioner with interest.

v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was in army from 1991 to 2007 at the post of Havaldar (Clerk), Madras Engineering Group and centre, Banglore. The petitioner took voluntary retirement from army in November, 2007. Thereafter, in February 2009 the petitioner had joined the State Service and he was appointed on the post of AG- III, District Sainik Welfare Office, Jagdalpur (CG). On 15/6/2012, a complaint was made against Late Suryakant Verma and the petitioner by one Ram Murti Pandey alleging demand of money from relatives of died or retired soldiers on account of. In alleged complaint allegation has been leveled that the petitioner and Late Suryakant Verma had demanded money from 6 persons. Vide covering memo dated 23/6/2012, the Deputy Collector (District Welfare Officer) sought clarification. The petitioner on 27/6/2012 submitted its clarification and demanded all relevant documents, but the same were not supplied to him and ex-parte primary inquiry was conducted by Deputy Collector, Bastar (District Welfare Officer) and submitted its report dated 19/7/2012 to the Collector. Upon receipt of the show notice, Suryakant Verma allegedly committed suicide on 03/07/2012. The petitioner was also transferred to the District Sainik Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. Thereafter again show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 28/09/2012 which was replied by the petitioner on 09/10/2012 and again a prayer was made with reference to earlier reply dated 27/6/2012 and the petitioner demanded the requisite documents, but same were not supplied. Without supplying the requisite documents, all of sudden the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21/12/2012 and was attached in the office of District Welfare Office Jagdalpur from the Office of District Welfare Office, Baikunthpur. On 17/1/2013 the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. On 28/01/2013 moved yet another application for grant of relevant documents to enable the petitioner to make an effective reply. The petitioner specifically asked for the complaints and the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry which made the basis of the charge sheet, but the same were not supplied. The petitioner was provided with some of the documents but most of them were not provided in the name of not being in the office. On 28/1/2013 the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought as many as 18 documents, out of which only 10 were supplied. The petitioner on 08/07/2013 once again made a request for providing relevant documents and specifically stated that mere cross examination would not be sufficient opportunity, but the same went in vain. The departmental inquiry was completed against the petitioner without proper opportunity. The petitioner on 05/08/2013 replied to the enquiry report and objected to the erroneous findings of the enquiry officer. On 18/9/2013 the respondent no.3 served a final notice to the petitioner proposing the major penalty of termination from service. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 27/9/2013. The petitioner was thereafter terminated from service by the order dated 11/10/2013. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging the decision of the authority. The appeal of the petitioner was kept unnecessarily pending without a single hearing. The petitioner moved a representation before the State