Non-supply of the enquiry report before the order of penalty does not automatically render the dismissal bad in law. The petitioner must prove prejudice due to non-observance of principles of natural justice.

R.K. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 27-4-2005 which is Annexure P/13 to the petition. This-order has been passed in compliance to the judgment passed by this Court on 9-11-2004 in W.P. No. 8088/2003 by which this Court directed the appellate authority to pass a speaking order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner earlier filed a case before the State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No. 643/93 wherein he challenged the order of removal from service which was passed on 30-11-1991. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal which was rejected by an order dated 12-1-1993 by the appellate authority. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the earlier petition referred to hereinabove therefore, this Court directed the appellate authority to pass a speaking order.

3. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 11-8-1988 which is Annexure A/2 to the petition. In the said charge-sheet, the petitioner was charged for the following misconduct:

(i) The petitioner was in-charge of Padmania Beat of Chitrakoot Range. In the said Beat, unhammered timber wood was found in the house of villagers. Same was seized as the timber wood was found in the Padmania Beat for which the petitioner was charged. The petitioner failed to take notice of the same and did not report the matter to his higher authorities with regard to unhammered timber wood in the house of villagers.

(ii) The Beat where the petitioner was deputed, unhammered timber wood of another Beat was found in large quantity. The petitioner failed to take note of the same and did not report the matter to the higher authorities.

(iii) On 5-6-1988, a truck No. URL-7287 was bringing fire wood from Beat Padmania which were cut illegally. The said truck was seized by SAF people. Petitioner made the same illegal act legal by putting his signatures on 'Zarayam', hence betrayed the State Government. The said misconduct of the petitioner was liable for disciplinary action.

4. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet which is Annexure P/3 to the petition. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was appointed by an order dated 8-5-1990. The Enquiry Officer examined Shri Devraj Tiwari, Shri Shivkumar Pandey, Shri Bela and Shri Mustari as a witnesses in support of the charges. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to examine the defence witnesses but he did not examine any witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which is Annexure P/6 to the petition. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of Charge No. 1 fully. For Charge No. 2, the petitioner was partly found guilty. So far as Charge No. 3 is concerned, the said charge was also found proved against the petitioner.

5. The Enquiry Officer in internal page 6 of the Enquiry report recorded a finding that whatever documents were produced in the enquiry by the Department, on that basis, the Charge No. 3 is not proved, yet the Enquiry Officer proved Charge No. 3 against the petitioner. The Disciplinary authority thereafter imposed a penalty of removal from service by an order dated 30-11- 1991. Along with this, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were also supplied which is reflected from the foot note of the order of punishment dated 30-11- 1991.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Enquiry Officer himself has recorded a finding that whatever documents were produced in the enquiry by the Department, on that basis, the Charge No. 3 is not proved, therefore, the Enquiry Officer should not have held petitioner guilty for the said charge and accordingly the Disciplinary authority also should not have imposed penalty on the basis of unproved charge. On that basis, it is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated.

7. The submission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted tho