Failure to furnish an enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice. Where authorities repeatedly default in complying with judicial directions and fail to correct procedural lapses, the court will not permit a fresh enquiry, especially when significant time has lapsed, to prevent the employer from benefiting from their own wrong.

Judgment :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The appellant was the respondent before the writ Court. Vide order dated 24.12.2024, the writ Court remanded the matter to Respondent No. 3 (General Manager) to examine the record of the departmental proceeding conducted against the writ petitioner, to ascertain whether a copy of the enquiry report was served on the writ petitioner at the stage of second show cause notice by the disciplinary authority. The order dated 24.12.2014 is the subject matter in the present intra court appeal.

2. We have heard the learned advocate representing the parties. Also considered the records including a photocopy of the writ petition (W.P. No. 2856 (W) of 2006), which was handed over to the Court by learned advocate for the writ petitioner, after service of a copy upon the learned advocate representing the appellant.

3. The petitioner was serving as a Driver and was proceeded against by a charge memo dated 20.11.1991. It was alleged that the petitioner was habitual of committing acts of insubordination and abusing his superior authorities. The charges alleged assault also.

4. The enquiry was conducted. An enquiry report dated 18.02.1992, was submitted and the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 18.02.1993, inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service upon the writ petitioner.

5. It would be relevant to note that in relation to the same allegations, an F.I.R was lodged giving rise to a criminal case, bearing Andal P.S.Case No. 254 of 1991.

6. The petitioner was also convicted in the criminal case vide a judgment dated 30.07.1999. The conviction was challenged by way of an appeal. The Appellate Court set aside the conviction by a judgment dated 12.04.2001.

7. The petitioner represented before the authorities on 10.12.2001 that the acquittal being based on the same set of facts and material, the Disciplinary Authority should reconsider the order of punishment dated 18.02.1992, in light of the findings of the Appellate Court, and extend the benefit of acquittal in the Criminal Appeal, in the departmental proceeding also. The petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416.

8. The representation was not considered, which compelled the petitioner to file a writ petition, W.P. 880(W) of 2002. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.05.2004, directing the Disciplinary Authority to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of the Supreme Court decisions and to take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on the representation. The Writ Court was of the view that if the Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the benefit be extended to the writ petitioner then it was required to be done without any delay. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by decision of the Disciplinary Authority it was left open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings for redressal of his grievance.

9. Thereafter, the authority passed an order dated 27.09.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s representation, on a specious premise that the Writ Court while directing for consideration of the petitioner’s representation did not set