The failure to provide a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing before removal from service violates principles of natural justice and is rendered vitiated, as mandated by Article 311 and Rule 55 of CCA Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Ms. Alka Verma, assisted by Mr. Tanay Hazari, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State counsel for opposite parties.

2. Writ Petition No.7437 (S/S) of 1992 has been filed challenging the punishment order dated 29.09.1992 whereby punishment of removal from service has been inflicted upon petitioner.

3. Writ-A No. 5314 of 2002 has been filed with regard to consequential benefits sought in case the petition of 1992 succeeds.

4. It has been submitted that earlier while in service, petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 27.01.1976 thereby instituting the disciplinary proceedings against him whereafter an inquiry report was submitted holding petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. On the basis of inquiry report, punishment order dated 02.12.1980 was passed against petitioner dismissing him from service. The said order was thereafter challenged by petitioner before the State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.173/F/iv of 1981. The said claim petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 29.10.1983 primarily on the ground that punishment order had been passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter was remanded for passing of orders afresh on the aspect of punishment while upholding the inquiry proceedings. The said order was thereafter challenged before this Court by the State Government in Writ Petition No.1524 of (S/S) 1984 in which although initially an interim order was passed but was subsequently vacated and in pursuance of which petitioner was allowed to join duties w.e.f. 26.05.1990. The judgment and order passed by Tribunal was also assailed by petitioner in Writ Petition No.2581 of (S/S)1994.

5. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner, which is taken on record, brings on record the fact that both the aforesaid petitions were thereafter dismissed as infructuous in view of passing of subsequent order which is impugned in the present petition.

6. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed without complying with directions issued by the Tribunal inasmuch as no fresh show cause notice was ever served upon petitioner prior to passing the impugned order of removal, which was mandatory in terms of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1930 ,which were applicable at that time and which specifically provided that no order of punishment would be passed by the disciplinary authority until and unless an opportunity of hearing was provided to the delinquent employee. It is submitted that during pendency of petition, petitioner passed away and has been substituted by his legal heirs.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the said procedure has not been followed, the impugned order therefore is rendered vitiated. She has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.C.I.L. vs B Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 .

8. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that once the Tribunal has clearly upheld findings recorded in the inquiry proceedings, the only aspect required was to consider inflicting punishment upon petitioner and has adverted to paragraph 28 of counter affidavit to submit that order of removal has been passed on the basis of entire material on record and inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that there is no specific ground taken by petitioner in pleadings that he was not served with any show cause notice or was not provided any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of order of removal. It is further submitted that petitioner has also been unable to indicate any prejudice caused to him even if it is assumed, though not admitted, that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of impugned order.

9. Upon consideration of submi