Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 79 (UTT)

Ram Prakash Sharma v. Cane Commissioner U. P.

2012-02-24

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
Judgment : Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. The petitioner was appointed as the Ganna Gram Sewak in the year 1978, which was re-designated as the Cane Supervisor. In July, 1997, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the charge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why action should not be taken under the rules. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 4th August, 1998. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, issued an order dated 10.11.1998 reverting the petitioner to the minimum level in the pay scale applicable to him and also directed that an adverse entry be recorded in his service record and that his integrity certificate was also withheld. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition. The only ground urged before this Court is that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner at the time when a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and the non-supply of the enquiry report had caused irreparable injury. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provides that a copy of the enquiry report should be supplied at the stage when a show cause notice is being issued. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, the respondents admitted that the show cause notice dated 15th June, 1998 was not accompanied by a copy of the enquiry report, but further submitted that when the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, the enquiry report was also served and the petitioner after reading the same only received the show cause notice. The respondents, consequently, contented that the copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied. The respondents, consequently, contented that the copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied. Further, at no stage thereafter did the petitioner make any demand for the supply of the enquiry report. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, it has been urged that nothing has been indicated in the writ petition as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner for the non-supply of the enquiry report. In order to appreciate the rival stand of the parties, it is essential to peruse Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 1999, which provides as under: “9(4) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in rule 3 should be imposed on the charged government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that a penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report. Admittedly, the show cause notice was not accompanied by the enquiry report, but it has been specifically stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that at the time when the show cause notice was served, a copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed and consequently, the contents of paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit remains unrebutted. In the light of the aforesaid admitted position, it is clear that non-supply of the enquiry report is not fatal to the impugned order. No prejudice has been shown by the petitioner nor the same has been alleged by the petitioner. Even after the show cause notice was served, no steps were taken by the petitioner asking the disciplinary authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 , the Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 , the Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.