1990 Supreme(Raj) 773

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.R.Calla, J.
M. K Soni - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4191 of 1989.
Decided On : 04-12-1990

The failure to provide a delinquent officer with a copy of the inquiry report before passing a punishment order violates the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Headnote:

NATURAL JUSTICE - INQUIRY REPORT - COPY TO DELINQUENT - ESSENTIAL - PUNISHMENT ORDER WITHOUT SUPPLY OF INQUIRY REPORT - INVALID - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - DENIAL - INQUIRY VITIATED - DENOVO INQUIRY - NOT APPROPRIATE - OLD AND STALE SUBJECT MATTER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Ground Water Department of the Government of Rajasthan, was served with a memorandum proposing an inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules against him based on charges and allegations related to an incident in 1977-78. The petitioner filed a reply and requested various documents to make an effective defense, but the documents were not made available. An inquiry was held, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a Review Petition, which was rejected.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report before passing the punishment order violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court also held that the denial of the requested documents constituted a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The court further held that, given the old and stale nature of the subject matter of the charges, it was not appropriate to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for a de novo inquiry.

Issues: 1. Whether the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report before passing the punishment order violated the principles of natural justice and fair play? 2. Whether the denial of the requested documents constituted a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner? 3. Whether it was appropriate to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for a de novo inquiry, given the old and stale nature of the subject matter of the charges?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the failure to provide the petitioner with a copy of the inquiry report before passing the punishment order violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court reasoned that the Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Inquiry Officer who held the inquiry, recorded the evidence, and submitted an inquiry report containing findings on each of the charges. The punishment order was passed on the basis of this inquiry report. The court held that, in such cases, a copy of the inquiry report must be made available to the delinquent officer so that he is able to offer his criticism against the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority before it proceeds to examine the inquiry report. 2. The court held that the denial of the requested documents constituted a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The court reasoned that the petitioner had asked for the documents during the course of the inquiry so as to make use of the same in his defense, but the same were not made available to him. The court held that this denial of documents had caused prejudice to the petitioner and had denied him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 3. The court held that, given the old and stale nature of the subject matter of the charges, it was not appropriate to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for a de novo inquiry. The court reasoned that the incident in question had occurred in 1977-78, and the inquiry was proposed in 1985. The court held that it would not be proper to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for a trial de novo after 13 years.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order of punishment and the order passed in Review. The court directed that the matter be considered closed forever and that the petitioner be entitled to all consequential benefits as if the impugned order had never been passed against him.