The main legal point established in the judgment is that the penalty of dismissal from service was not illegal due to non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer and that Section 25F did not apply in this case. The court emphasized the need to establish prejudice caused by non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The appellant : Rajesh Kumar Gandhi is aggrieved by the impugned decision dated January 23, 2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.4019/2010 filed by the respondent :

Shriram Institute for Industrial Research. The grievance of the respondent in the writ petition was to the finding returned in the award dated September 04, 2009 that the appellant’s dismissal from service was illegal on account of non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the appellant. Further grievance was to the finding in the award that since as per the letter of appointment one month notice pay was not given and hence Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 was violated and lastly to the finding that for the misconduct of unauthorized absence penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate.

2. The learned Single Judge has held that mere non-supply of report of Inquiry Officer was no ground by itself to hold that the penalty of dismissal from service was invalid and for which the learned Single Judge has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 30 of the decision reported as (1993) 4 SCC 727 Managing Director ECIL & Ors. Vs. B.Karunakar & Ors. On the alleged violation of Section 25F of the ID Act, thelearned Single Judge has noted the definition of retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, 1947 to highlight that it being a case not of retrenchment, but of punishment, in view of the law declared in the decision reported as (2005) 12 SCC 422 Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vilas, the said finding returned by the Tribunal was illegal. On the issue of proportionality of the punishment the learned Single Judge has held that it was a case where the appellant refused to obey lawful orders passed by his superiors coupled with unauthorized absence. The learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider whether any prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer to him because in B.Karunakar’s case (supra) the Supreme Court held that unless it could be established that non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer a prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee, on account of mere non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer it cannot be said that a punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority after accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer is illegal.

3. The appellant who appeared in person supported the award and urged that the findings returned by the learned Single Judge are contrary to law. An additional point was urged regarding non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, 1947. The appellant relied upon the decisions reported as (1991) 1 LLJ SC 29 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd.Ramzan Khan, (2000) 1 LLJ Gauhati 829 State Bank of India & ORs. Vs. Ralkapzawna, 1982 LAB IC 1378 Management Delhi Transport Corpn. Vs. Ram Kumar & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 195 Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar H.Manjare, 2002 LAB IC 513 Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and 2005 LAB IC 2940 Pandian Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal, Madras.

4. Before dealing with the contentions urged by the appellant and the case law cited, we need to note a relevant fact of importance which had escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. The same would bring out a glaring conflict between the order dated April 25, 2009 passed by the Tribunal and the award dated September 04, 2009. On the reference received by the Tribunal from the appropriate Government :

‘whether the dismissal of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Gandhi from his service by the management is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”; after pleadings were completed two issues were settled by the Tribunal on February 02, 1994 as under:-

(1) Whether a valid and proper inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice was held against the petitioner