The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for procedural fairness, specific allegations in charge memos, and unbiased and fair conduct of inquiry proceedings under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, rendered in CWP(T) No. 3818/2008, dated 17.04.2009.

2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that a memorandum under Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 was issued to the respondent on 14.08.1986. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority on 22.03.1995. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 27.11.1995 why the penalty of compulsory retirement be not imposed upon him. He filed reply to the same on 31.01.1996. The disciplinary authority passed the office order dated 12.09.1996, whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon the petitioner. He assailed this order before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1557/96. The matter was transferred to this Court and it was assigned CWP(T) No. 3818/2008. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 17.04.2009.

3. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the inquiry was held strictly in accordance with law and there is no infraction of principles of natural justice.

4. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment dated 17.04.2009.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire records of CWP(T) No. 3818/2008 carefully.

6. We have gone through the inquiry report. According to the inquiry report, dated 22.03.1995, Charge No. 1 was not proved against the petitioner. Now as far as Charge No. II is concerned, the petitioner was charged for not verifying the bill No. 9510, dated 31.03.84, bill No.8905, dated 28.06.84, bill No. 8930, dated 18.7.84 and bill No. 10652, dated 15.2.85. However, the Inquiry Officer has not discussed these bills, but has discussed bills No. 1416 and 1333, dated 31.3.1979, which did not form integral part of the charge sheet. This position was conceded by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation before the learned Single Judge. The Inquiry Officer could not go beyond the charge-sheet. Bills No. 1416 and 1333, dated 31.3.1979 were rather exhibited during the course of inquiry. These were required to be mentioned in the charge-sheet and thereafter supplied to the petitioner.

7. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, have held as under:

"To have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure."

8. In State Bank of India and others v. D.C. Aggarwal and another, (1993) 1 SCC 13, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as under:

"The disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, major or minor, cannot act on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent. Imposition of punishment on an employee, on material which is not only not supplied but not disclosed to him, cannot be countenanced. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself."

9. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Ranganathan, (1997) 2 1997 Lab IC 2629, has held that when a charge memo is filed specific allegation should be made and the delinquent officer must get reasonable opportunity to deny the allegation. The Division Bench has held as under:

"6. The learned counsel for the respondent contended before us that the respondent was not given an opportunity to submit an explanation in respect of the alleged violation of the Conduct Rules stated in Ext. P7. In Ext. P7, it is found that the respondent had sold a car to one M.C. Ahammedkutty, who was a resident of Malappuram District on October 21, 1989 when the respondent was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. In Ext. P4, charge memo there is no suc