Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating reasonable apprehension of bias and violating natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order No.JMC/PS/COM/279 dated 20.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby he has been dismissed from service. Challenge has also been thrown to the Departmental Enquiry proceedings that have been conducted by respondent No. 2 holding him guilty of the charge of misconduct.

2. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) in the year 1991 and was promoted as Enforcement Inspector in the year 2016. According to the petitioner, he was posted as Enforcement Inspector for Ward Nos. 51, 52, 53 &54 of Jammu from 07.02.2019 to 31.07.2019.

3. A complaint dated 18.06.2019 came to be filed against the petitioner by one Smt. Jyoti Devi, Corporator Ward No. 53, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, alleging that unauthorised construction is going on in Ward No. 53 and no action is being taken by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner and he was directed to explain his position. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply on 15.07.2019. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), JMC who submitted his report dated 27.07.2019. On the basis of the fact-finding report submitted by Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), JMC, the petitioner was placed under suspension by virtue of order dated 31.07.2019 issued by respondent No. 2, and the Secretary, JMC was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to look into the allegations against the petitioner. Accordingly, a fresh preliminary enquiry was conducted into the allegations against the petitioner. The Secretary, JMC Jammu, after a detailed enquiry, submitted his report and recommendations vide his communication dated 12.12.2019.

4. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, by virtue of memorandum dated 17.02.2020, initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in terms of Rule 33 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1956). The article of charges and the statement of imputations were served upon the petitioner, who was asked to file his written statement of defence within 07 days. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his written statement of defence on 22.02.2020 denying the charges. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 appointed herself as the Enquiry Officer and proceeded to hold the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

5. By virtue of notice dated 20.03.2020, the petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No. 2 for recording his statement of defence. During the course of enquiry, respondent No. 2 directed the Joint Commissioner Administration, JMC (respondent No.4 herien), to submit a factual report relating to the constructions raised between February 2019 to July 2019. Accordingly, a report dated 20.04.2020 was submitted by respondent No. 4. Respondent No.2, the Enquiry Officer rendered her report dated 23.04.2020 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide notice dated 23.04.2020, asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1956 be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice vide his