IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of natural justice require that all relevant documents must be provided to a party to ensure a fair opportunity to respond, failing which disciplinary actions may be invalidated.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

“That, by means of this writ application, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) for quashing the Impugned appellate order issued under Memo No: 5031 communicated vide Memo No : 5701 dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure-13) as well as the order of punishment issued under Memo No: 776 dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure-9) whereby and whereunder the respondent No:3 discharged the petitioner from his service and deprived from salary for the period of suspension; And/Or for issuance of any such Writ(s) /Order(s) /Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case and the enquiry proceedings was not conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that so far as 2nd show-cause notice is concerned, only the copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner, but the enclosures to the enquiry report were never handed over.

4. The learned counsel has next submitted that while responding to the 2nd show-cause notice, the petitioner had objected to the fact that the enclosures to the enquiry report were not handed over and accordingly demanded the same. However, the petitioner having no option, he filed response to the 2nd show-cause notice reserving his right to file additional reply to the 2nd show-cause.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of dismissal was passed on 30.03.2016 without providing him the enclosures to the enquiry report and the objection raised by the petitioner in his 2nd show-cause reply with regard to non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report has not been considered while passing the order of punishment.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that appeal was filed on 09.05.2016. In the said memo of appeal also, specific plea was raised in connection with non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report, but the appellate authority also did not consider this aspect of the matter and other points raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while the appeal was pending and was not being disposed of, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6850 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2019 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

8. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 17 of the writ petition and submits that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the documents referred to in the enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner. He submits that such statement has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that enclosures to the enquiry report which formed a part of the enquiry report itself having not been handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of giving proper response to the 2nd show-cause notice and accordingly, the impugned orders call for interference by this Court.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given 2nd show-cause to which he responded. She submits that every aspect of the matter has been considered and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference under limited jurisdiction under Article 226 o