Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 283 (PAT)

Ramjee Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-07

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 661 of 2003, whereby and whereunder order passed by the appellate forum has been challenged is allowed. It will form part of the main writ application. 3. The petitioners have challenged the orders of punishment imposed upon them in departmental proceeding vide orders, as contained in Annexures 8 series, and also the order passed by the appellate forum, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assails the orders impugned solely on the ground that the copies of the inquiry report were not given to the petitioners, and, thus, the principles of Natural Justice were violated. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had raised this specific question in appeal, but the appellate forum without answering the query raised by the petitioners dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of punishment. 5. In this connection, my attention has been drawn towards the statement made in paragraph 28 of the writ application, wherein it is stated that the copies of the inquiry report were not served upon the petitioners and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to represent their case. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, but the statement made in paragraph 28 of the writ application has not been controverted nor it has been stated that the principles of Natural Justice were followed in the departmental proceedlng by giving copies of the inquiry report to the petitioners. 7. JC to SC 3 submits that he had also verified the records of the case, but he himself was not satisfied with the fact that the copies of the inquiry report were given to the petitioners. 8. From the order passed by the appellate forum, as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit, it appears that the specific questions were raised, but the appellate authority escaped this question and dismissed the appeal. 9. A copy of the inquiry report is required to be given to the delinquent employee in the departmental proceeding and in case, a copy of the inquiry report is not given, the principles of Natural Justice are violated. 10. This question has been set at rest by several judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of the Union of India and others V/s. Md. 10. This question has been set at rest by several judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of the Union of India and others V/s. Md. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 (1) Supreme Court, 471 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others V/s. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727. 11. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the copies of the inquiry report were not given to the petitioners, and, thus, the principles of Natural Justice were not followed in the departmental proceeding and on this ground alone, the entire proceeding vitiates. 12. In the result, this application is allowed and the orders, as contained in annexures 8 series to the writ application and A to the counter affidavit are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law from the stage of serving of the copies of the inquiry report to the petitioners. The authorities will now serve the copies of the inquiry report upon the petitioners and thereafter pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 13. No order as to costs.