The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-11), passed by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner was inflicted a major punishment of stoppage of increments for two years which is equivalent to two black marks in his service career.

The petitioner has also assailed the appellate order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure-14), passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was suspended on 31.08.2015 on the allegation that he has submitted two different case diaries in the case of Kanke P.S. Case No. 65 of 2014 and thereafter, charge memo dated 14.09.2015 was issued asking reply from the petitioner, to which he duly replied on 27.11.2015 categorically refuting the allegation levelled against him. However, the disciplinary authority initiated departmental proceeding against him.

It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was ever served to the petitioner regarding initiation of departmental proceeding and behind his back the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.02.2016, the petitioner was asked to give his final reply to the show-cause and the petitioner submitted his reply 26.02.2016. However, to his utter surprise vide order dated 16.02.2018, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of increments for two years which is equivalent to two black marks in his service career.

Against the order of punishment, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 179 of 2019, however, the said writ application stood dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to move before the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 04.11.2022, affirmed the order of punishment.

Throwing challenge to the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner has rushed to this Court.

The only contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the entire disciplinary proceeding suffers from procedural irregularities, inasmuch as, the petitioner has neither been served with the enquiry report; nor the 2nd show-cause notice though, a major punishment has been inflicted against the petitioner.

He further submits that order dated 06.12.2024 has been passed in this case wherein the respondents were granted one opportunity to ascertain the aforesaid fact. Relying upon the aforesaid fact that since the order suffers from procedural irregularities, the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the specific assertion made in the petition has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit and he further requested for a week’s time.

Interestingly, on 06.12.2024 itself i.e. one and half years ago, the respondents were granted time to ascertain the fact as to whether show-cause notice and enquiry report were served to the petitioner or not, but even after lapse of almost one and half years, the information could not be given by the respondents to their counsel. Therefore, instead of granting time, this Court is proceeding to decide the matter.

Admittedly, law is well settled in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 727 and in the case of Kunj Bihar Mishra Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, that in case of major punishment, it is the condition precedent that the copy of enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice must be given to the delinquent, before passing the order of punishment but the same has not been done in the instant case.

Accordingly, due to admitted procedural irregularities, the impugned orders are required to be interfered with. As such, the order of punishment dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure-11) and appellate or