AT CHANDIGARH

203 CWP-12479-2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.10.2025 BALWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and Ms. Radhika, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

*****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure P-10), 12.03.2008 (Annexure P-9) and 26.04.2007 (Annexure P-7), whereby he was dismissed from service and higher authorities dismissed his appeal/revision.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 31.01.1981. He was promoted as Head Constable on 15.09.1989. He was promoted as ASI on 23.12.2002. The respondent alleging misconduct initiated departmental proceedings against him. He was served charge-sheet. An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct inquiry. The inquiry officer found that there is no evidence of accepting money, however, declared the petitioner guilty of responsible post, the delinquent did not register a case and only initiated preventive action. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The said authority supplied copy of inquiry report along with show cause notice. The petitioner did not file response to show cause notice and Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 26.04.2007 dismissed him from service. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal as well as revision before higher authorities.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not supplied copy of inquiry report. He even did not receive alleged show cause notice. As per alleged show cause notice, copy of inquiry report was supplied along with show cause notice. In the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority categorically averred that he agrees with the report of inquiry officer. It means the Disciplinary Authority had already applied its mind and formed an opinion that petitioner should be dismissed from service. The action of authorities was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. A five-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and otheres vs. B. Karunakar and others (1993) 4 SCC 727 has clearly held that the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to supply copy of inquiry report before passing any adverse order.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Disciplinary Authority attempted to supply copy of inquiry report, however, petitioner changed his address and his father refused to accept copy of inquiry report. The show cause notice along with inquiry report was affixed at conspicuous place of the house.

inquiry officer was not supplied independently whereas it was supplied along with show cause notice.

6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that inquiry officer was different from Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry officer did not find involvement of money, however, declared petitioner guilty of alleged misconduct. Allegation against the petitioner was that he did not register FIR and initiated preventive action. The inquiry officer submitted his report to Disciplinary Authority which did not supply copy of inquiry report to petitioner, however, enclosed with show cause notice wherein punishment of dismissal from service was proposed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra) has clearly held that Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to supply copy of inquiry report to delinquent so that he may make his representation to the Disciplinary Authority.

The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"29. Hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives