No prejudice caused to employee due to non-supply of preliminary enquiry report.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.)

P. Sathasivam, J.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings Nos. V-11014/45/SZ/LC/ SWS/01/8520 dated 20.12.2001, affirming the order of the second respondent in proceedings No.V-11014/46/2001/L&R(SZ) dated 28.08.2001, affirming the order of the third respondent in proceedings No.V-150014/1/Estt.I/NC/2001/6280 dated 02.07.2001 and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.

2. According to the petitioner, on 25/26.10.2000, he was deployed for duty at Gate No.II in "A" Coy. His duty hours were from 17.00 hours to 05.00 hours(12 hours duty). While he was performing his duty, at about 22.00 hours, the Assistant Commandant Mr.K.V.K. Sriram along with two other Assistant Commandants in civilian dress, came to the area, where he and others performed duties. They conducted check on the petitioner at the duty spot itself. According to him, he has not obstructed or misbehaved with the Checking Officers. However, he was charge sheeted and he made a representation seeking copies of certain documents including the copy of the preliminary enquiry report. Inspite of his specific request, those copies were not at all supplied to him. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. Though six witnesses were examined on the side of the Department, out of which, first three witnesses were the officers themselves, who had conducted the checking. Among the prosecution witnesses, PW6 had clearly deposed that though the petitioner had requested the Assistant Commandant (PW1) to conduct the checking inside the office, admittedly, checking was conducted in the middle of the road itself. He also deposed that he had not misbehaved with the Assistant Commandant. He further deposed that the Assistant Commandant was under the influence of alcohol and harassed the petitioner while conducting checking. The statement of PW6 was rejected by the enquiry officer on the ground that he made such a statement to save his own skin, because he was also facing another enquiry. Finally, the enquiry officer has submitted his report on 26.05.2001 wherein he held that the charges were proved. On 30.05.2001, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to him and he was asked to give representation. He has also made a representation on 14.06.2001. By an order dated 02.07.2001, he was given punishment of compulsory retirement of service with full compensation pension and 2/3rd portion of gratuity.

3. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the second respondent on 11.07.2001 and the same was rejected on 28.08.2001. Thereafter, he made a representation on 29.09.2001 and the same was also rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and having no other remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner, after taking us through the charge memo, enquiry proceedings, orders of original, appellate and revisional authorities, has raised the following contentions:

(1) Inspite of specific request, the petitioner was not given a copy of preliminary enquiry report, which is a vital document in support of his defence.

(2) The findings of the enquiry officer are perverse.

(3) All the three authorities including the original authority failed to consider the proportionality of the punishment while awarding punishment of compulsory retirement.

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as all relevant materials including the copy of the enquiry report were furnished to the petitioner and he participated in the enquiry, there was no flaw and there is no need to supply preliminary enquiry report as claimed. He also contended that inasmuch as the petit