Failure to provide an inquiry report to a delinquent officer violates principles of natural justice, making disciplinary action invalid.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. None appears for the respondents despite the service being complete.

2. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure-14) whereby the disciplinary authority proceeded on to impose a punishment of removal from service against the petitioner in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’).

3. The facts are that memorandum of charges was served on the petitioner on 20.11.2007 and he was called upon to file his defence qua the said charges. The inquiry officer as appointed at the first stage retired without initiating the inquiry proceedings and subsequent inquiry officers continued to be appointed. Ultimately, it is only in the year 2014 that the fifth inquiry officer as appointed, when called upon to submit the inquiry report within a period of 15 days, submitted the same on 20.11.2014. After the submission of said inquiry report, personal hearing was provided to the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Bank on 28.11.2014 and 29.11.2014.

4. On 29.11.2014, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Managing Director proceeded on to pass the order impugned while imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is bad as no inquiry report was ever served on the petitioner in terms of Rule 16 (10) of the CCA Rules and no opportunity was granted to him to file his defence.

6. Heard learned Counsel and perused the record.

7. Rule 16 (10) of the CCA Rules provides as under:

“16(10) The disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days.”

8. A specific ground regarding the non serving of the inquiry report has been raised in the present petition and in reply to the said ground, the fact as averred has not been denied by the respondents. Rather, reply to para no.13 of the writ petition as filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 reads as under:-

“That the contents of para 13 of the writ petition are wrong and are denied. It is submitted that the inquiry report has not been made available to the petitioner.”

9. In view of the above reply wherein non supplying of inquiry report is admitted on behalf of the respondents, the action of the disciplinary authority is clearly contrary to the provisions of law. Further, the fact of the inquiry report having not been supplied to the petitioner in terms of Rule 16 (10) of the CCA Rules is evident even from the observations made by the disciplinary authority in the order impugned itself. The order takes note of the fact that an application was filed by the petitioner on 20.11.2014 with a request for the inquiry report to be supplied to him. The observation as made by the disciplinary authority in order impugned reads as under:

10. A bare perusal of the above observation reflects that on 28.11.2024, a request for inquiry report was made by the petitioner which was supplied to him on the same date. Rule 16 (10) of the CCA Rules specifically provides for a grant of 15 days time to the incumbent for filing of a written representation or submission. Evidently, the order impugned had been passed on 29.11.2014 i.e. the very next day of the inquiry report been sup