JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order issued under Memo No. 2620 dated 09.6.2008 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with two punishments: (i) warning and withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect and (ii) period spent in custody has been decided to keep pending till the decision of the court.

3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application are that while the petitioner was in service; in the year 1999 he was served with a memo of charge (Annexure 1) to which the petitioner duly replied asking for supply of relevant documents. Thereafter, in the year 2001 another resolution dated 01.2.2001 was issued, whereby one Thakur Ravindra Kumar was appointed as the Inquiry Officer by changing the earlier Inquiry Officer. After appointment of the new Inquiry Officer, the petitioner filed an application before the respondents in which the petitioner requested to change the Inquiry Officer, as he apprehended that the Inquiry Officer might give report against him due to previous biasness, but his request was rejected. Against that refusal, the petitioner filed an application before Respondent No.1-the Chairman of the Board, but the petitioner did not get any reply. However, after a gap of almost six years, petitioner was served with the punishment order.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the charge was served upon him way back on 12.5.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner asked for relevant documents, however, the same were not handed over to him and on 01.02.2001 the earlier Inquiry Officer has been changed and a new Enquiry Officer has been appointed. However, after a gap of seven years in the year 2008, vide the impugned order; punishment has been imposed.

Learned counsel relied upon the resolution dated 09.8.1996 of the respondent Board (Annexure 5), by which it was directed to all concerned that before passing an order of punishment, it is necessary to supply the copy of the enquiry report as a matter of right to the concerned employee of the board calling upon him to show cause on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and after receipt of show cause, if any, submitted by the concerned employee final order may be passed on the concerned report of the Departmental Proceedings.

Relying upon the aforesaid resolution and specific averments stated in various paragraphs in the writ application that neither enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner nor any show-cause notice was asked before imposing punishment, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been prejudiced. He reiterated that the petitioner had filed a specific application before respondent authorities that the petitioner has no faith in the Inquiry Officer who has been appointed vide resolution dated 01.2.2001 and he might give report against this petitioner due to previous bias but the same was not considered.

In order to buttress his argument he relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS Versus KHARAK SINGH reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236.

4. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Board submits that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the enquiry report as well as the second show cause notice before imposing punishment. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Versus KAILASH CHANDRA AHUJA reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31, wherein at paragraph no. 21-44 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that petitioner has to show that prejudice has been caused.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents as well as averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that it is an admitted case that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report as well as the show cause notice before imposing punis