Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 223 (GAU)

Hiren Chandra Talukdar v. State of Assam

2016-03-28

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. This case was heard on 01.03.2016 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Judgment is accordingly delivered. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, imposing the penalty of reduction in rank on the petitioner and reinstating the petitioner in the lower post of Junior Assistant. Petitioner further challenges the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, upholding the penalty order dated 29.12.2010 and rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Case of the petitioner is that while he was serving as Accountant in the Doyangbra Development Block, North-Cachar Hills district, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 31.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development, Govt. of Assam, acting as the disciplinary authority under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (1964 Rules) read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules should not be imposed on him on the charge mentioned therein based on the statement of allegation attached to the show-cause notice. It was alleged that while petitioner was working as Accountant at Doyangbra Development Block during the year 2009, he along with Block Development Officer (BDO) of the said Block had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3 crores allotted under MNREGA for the benefit of poor people of Doyangbra Block and had handed over the amount to unlawful elements and extremists. Petitioner was further charged with misappropriation of Government money allotted for the poor people of Doyangbra Development Block. It was stated that a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom charge against the petitioner was sought to be proved, were enclosed with the show-cause notice. 4. Petitioner has stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition that none of the documents contained in the list of documents were provided to the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, petitioner submitted his written statement on 27.11.2009 denying the said allegation and the charge. 4. Petitioner has stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition that none of the documents contained in the list of documents were provided to the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, petitioner submitted his written statement on 27.11.2009 denying the said allegation and the charge. Petitioner stated that he was a disciplined and obedient Government servant and had always discharged his duties with a sense of responsibility and commitment. 6. It appears that written statement submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the disciplinary authority, who by his order dated 21.12.2009, appointed Enquiry Officer to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. By the said order, Presenting Officer was also appointed. 7. It appears that Enquiry Officer thereafter conducted enquiry and on conclusion of the same, submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. Based on the enquiry report, disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposing the penalty of reduction in rank on the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner was reinstated in service in the lower post of Junior Assistant. 8. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had submitted an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The appellate authority by order dated 28.02.2013, upheld the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. Hence, the writ petition. 10. Notice in this case was issued on 20.11.2013. Case was thereafter admitted for hearing on 10.02.2015. Though this case is pending since 20.11.2013 for more than two years, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Consequently, averments made in the writ petition have remained uncontroverted. However, learned Government Advocate has produced the record. 11. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 12. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner was under Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. Procedure laid down under Rule 9, as has been held by this Court in a number of decisions, is mandatory in nature. Non-compliance to the mandatory requirement of Rule 9 would vitiate the departmental proceeding rendering the impugned order of penalty untenable. He submits that firstly none of the documents mentioned in the list of documents were furnished to the petitioner. Non-compliance to the mandatory requirement of Rule 9 would vitiate the departmental proceeding rendering the impugned order of penalty untenable. He submits that firstly none of the documents mentioned in the list of documents were furnished to the petitioner. On the other hand, during the enquiry proceeding, reliance was placed on the said documents to the prejudice of the petitioner. Not only that, certain documents not included in the list of documents were considered by the Enquiry Officer to the prejudice of the petitioner. Likewise, persons who were named as witnesses in the list of witnesses were not examined. On the other hand, persons not named as witness were called to adduce evidence by the Enquiry Officer. This had completely vitiated the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner. Going into the substance of the enquiry report, Mr. Mishra submits that even on the basis of the materials placed before him, the Enquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the charge brought against the petitioner stood proved. He further submits that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner to enable him to submit his representation on the enquiry report. Thus, non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner prior to acceptance of the same and imposition of penalty was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that disciplinary authority had failed to apply its mind while accepting the enquiry report and imposing the impugned penalty. Appeal filed by the petitioner was mechanically rejected. Therefore, he submits that impugned order of penalty is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate, supports the impugned order of penalty and submits that no case for interference is made out. He has produced the record before the Court for perusal. 14. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 15. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the provisions of Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. 16. Rule 9(1) provides that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 would be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be in the manner provided in Rule 9. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the provisions of Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules. 16. Rule 9(1) provides that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 7 would be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be in the manner provided in Rule 9. As per Sub-Rule (2), disciplinary authority is required to frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed. Such charges together with a statement of allegations on which the charges are based shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant who shall be required to submit his written statement of defence within the time specified. While delivering the charges, disciplinary authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained. Under Sub-Rule (3), the Government servant has the right of inspection of relevant documents and taking extracts therefrom for the purpose of preparing his defence. Sub-Rule (4) provides that on receipt of written statement of defence or if no such statement is received, disciplinary authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it is considered necessary, to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. Under Sub-Rule (5), disciplinary authority may nominate a Presenting Officer to present its case before the Enquiry Officer. The Government servant shall ordinarily present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the disciplinary authority. As per Sub-Rule (6), in the course of enquiry, Enquiry Officer may consider documentary as well as oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The Government servant shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges and to give evidence in person as well as to adduce documentary and oral evidence in his defence. Presenting Officer would be entitled to cross-examine the Government servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. Sub-Rule (7) provides that at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the enquiry, record his findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. As per Sub-Rule (9), disciplinary authority if not the Enquiry Officer shall consider the record of enquiry and record its findings on each charge. 17. Sub-Rule (7) provides that at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the enquiry, record his findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. As per Sub-Rule (9), disciplinary authority if not the Enquiry Officer shall consider the record of enquiry and record its findings on each charge. 17. Having briefly noticed the procedure for imposing penalty as laid down in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules, contention of the petitioner that procedure prescribed under Rule 9 has not been followed and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice may now be looked into. 18. As has already been noticed above, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9, it is clearly provided that at the time of delivering the charges, the disciplinary authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and a list of witnesses by which the charges are proposed to be sustained. In the present case, list of documents and list of witnesses were stated to have been enclosed with the show-cause notice. The list of documents contained six documents which are as under: "1. Order dated 19.02.2009 of the Principal Secretary, North-Cachar Hills Autonomous Council; 2. Order dated 28.04.2009 of the Joint Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam; 3. Letter dated 17.03.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner, North-Cachar Hills, Haflong; 4. Enquiry report dated 15.03.2009 of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), North-Cachar Hills, Haflong; 5. Letter No.COM/HAD/1/2009/10 dated 17.02.2009 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Hill Areas Department, Assam; 6. Letter No.COM/HAD/1/2009/08 dated 17.02.2009 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Hill Areas Department, Assam." 19. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition, petitioner has made a specific averment that none of the above documents contained in the list of documents were provided to him. This averment has been repeated in ground No.(iv) urged by the petitioner in support of the challenge made in the writ petition. Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in this regard contesting the above averment. Consequently, the above averment made by the petitioner on oath has remained uncontroverted. The record produced also does not disclose acknowledgement receipt of the said documents by the petitioner. 20. This Court has held that provisions contained in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules have mandatory character and non-compliance thereto would vitiate the disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, the above averment made by the petitioner on oath has remained uncontroverted. The record produced also does not disclose acknowledgement receipt of the said documents by the petitioner. 20. This Court has held that provisions contained in Rule 9 of the 1964 Rules have mandatory character and non-compliance thereto would vitiate the disciplinary proceeding. As mentioned above, there were six documents on which the disciplinary authority intended to rely upon to establish the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, it is axiomatic that copies of such documents were required to be served upon the petitioner so that he was in a position to meet the charge effectively. Second part of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 says that at the time of delivering the charges, the disciplinary authority shall invariably furnish to the Government servant a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained. The use of the words "shall invariably" clearly conveys the intent of the rule making authority about the obligatory nature of the said provision. In Guna Kanta Tamuli v. State of Assam, reported in (2015) 1 GLR 430, the requirement of furnishing list of witnesses and list of documents has been held to be mandatory by this Court. Moreover, such a requirement is in conformity with the principles of natural justice and any action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice would be void. 21. A perusal of the enquiry report would go to show that the Enquiry Officer had considered the following documents which were not even included in the list of documents:- 1. Supervision note of Diyungmukh P.S. Case No.4/2009; 2. Haflong police report; 3. Letter written by North-Cachar District Congress-I. 22. The Enquiry Officer had also recorded the statement of one Shri S. Paul, a contractor under the Public Health Engineering Department along with one Shri Chakraborty, UDA, in the office of Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Haflong. While Shri Chakraborty was listed as witness No.5 in the list of witnesses, Shri S. Paul was not a named witness. 23. It is necessary that evidence, both documentary and oral, which are sought to be relied upon in a departmental enquiry against a Government servant, should be made known to him in advance so that the Government servant, who is proceeded against, is not taken by surprise. 23. It is necessary that evidence, both documentary and oral, which are sought to be relied upon in a departmental enquiry against a Government servant, should be made known to him in advance so that the Government servant, who is proceeded against, is not taken by surprise. This is a facet of fair procedure and by extension a part of the principles of natural justice. 24. In State of Assam and another v. Mahendra Kumar Das and others, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 709 , the Supreme Court has held that it is highly improper for an Enquiry Officer during the conduct of an enquiry to attempt to collect any material from outside sources and not make that information so collected available to the delinquent officer and make further use of the same in the enquiry proceeding. The Supreme Court categorically held that if it is established that material behind the back of the delinquent officer has been collected during the enquiry and such material has been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer without being disclosed to the delinquent officer, it can be stated that enquiry proceedings are vitiated. 25. In Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 229 , the Apex Court has held that if the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority are not supplied to the delinquent officer, it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. This position has been explained and clarified by the Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 . In Narinder Mohan Arya (supra), it has been held that Enquiry Officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry and that suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. 26. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Supreme Court observed that the proposition of law that a Government employee facing departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry against the charges is too well-established to need any further reiteration. 27. 27. That being the position, consideration of outside materials by the Enquiry Officer, i.e., materials not mentioned in the list of witnesses has resulted in a situation where it can be deduced that reasonable opportunity was denied to the petitioner. This is in addition to the fact that even the listed documents were not furnished to the petitioner in breach of the mandatory provision. 28. At this stage, relevant portion of the enquiry report may be adverted to which is as under: "I have taken the statement of Shri H.C. Talukdar on 18.1.10. In his statement, he says that as an Accountant he has the custody of cheque book, Pass Books, registers, cash book, Books of Accounts etc. The BDO is the single signatory in the cheque book. He told me that he does not keep the cash withdrawn from the Bank but the BDO does and the BDO disburses the amount drawn in Cash to the Group leader of the scheme. In his statement, Shri Talukdar told me that the incident took place involving arrest of Shri Rongpi, Gram Sevak of the Block. Following cash and drafts were seized by the Police: 1. Rs. 3.42 Lakhs - Cash 2. Rs.16.00 lakhs - Drafts 3. Rs.17.00 lakhs - Drafts 4. Total Rs. 36.42 lakhs Shri Rongpi after preparing the drafts and withdrawing cash from the bank proceeded to Diyangbra Development Block in 'Night Super'. He was intercepted by Army and handed over to police. On hearing the arrest of Shri Rongpi, Shri Talukdar fled to evade arrest. Shri H.C. Talukdar told that one Shri Hmar, President of L. Karting Youth Club had filed an FIR. I have seen the supervision note of Diyungmukh P.S. Case No.4/09 under section 120(B) by the Addl. S.P. Shri Namralthang Hmar had filed the FIR through a messenger in which he named Shri H.C. Talukdar, Accountant along with the BDO of Daiyanbra Development Block had misappropriated Rs.3 Crore allocated under NREGA schemes and have given the amount to unlawful elements and extremist. Up-to 31.03.2009 the complainant Shri Hmar and Shri H.C. Talukdar could not be examined by the police because of their unavailability. Haflong police report states that on 13.3.09 in a joint operation with the Assam Rifles, Haflong police had apprehended 2 persons (1) Lonkeshwar Rongpi (2) Pinku Das and found in their possession 2 cheques of Rs. Up-to 31.03.2009 the complainant Shri Hmar and Shri H.C. Talukdar could not be examined by the police because of their unavailability. Haflong police report states that on 13.3.09 in a joint operation with the Assam Rifles, Haflong police had apprehended 2 persons (1) Lonkeshwar Rongpi (2) Pinku Das and found in their possession 2 cheques of Rs. 6 lakhs and 7 lakhs, 2 bank deposit slips of SBI in the name of Shri Pramod Talukdar and Lajo Agency. Rs. 3.33 lakhs were found in cash in Shri Rongpi's possession whereas Shri H.C. Talukdar stated that Rs.35.33 lakhs was withdrawn from the Bank out of which Rs.16 and 17 lakhs were in form of drafts which were in favour of Shri Promod Talukdar and Lajo Agency. Further, the police report indicates that Shri Lankeshwar Rongpi and Pinku Das collected the following amount from the Bank. Rs. 45 lakhs by self cheque during Feb 09 Rs. 35 lakhs by self cheque during March 09 Rs. 80 Lakhs Hence, Rs. 80 lakhs were withdrawn from the Bank during Feb and March 2009. Police report indicates that there is alleged misappropriation of Govt. fund/scheme money and enquiry to alleged payment to militants and extremist organization. I have seen the letter written by the North Cachar District Congress (I). In the letter it is mentioned that Shri Talukdar withdrew Rs. 2 crores by self cheque in less than 12 days (2 weeks) with the complicity of the BDO and after that they fabricated and falsified the entire amount and the entire disbursement record. All payments made were fabricated. In IAY scheme selection of beneficiaries were done as per convenience of Shri Talukdar. He managed to draw self payee cheque in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs and prepared false and fabricated accounts. Shri Talukdar stated that the media reports against him appeared 15 days before the arrest of Shri Rongpi and Pinku Das and after the FIR was filed by Shri Hmar (NGO). The media reports in Assamese daily speaks of Rs.3 crores misappropriated in NREGA and IAY scheme in Diyanbra Development Block and involvement of Shri H.C. Talukdar. The BDO Shri Bolendra Ramchiary did not turn up for the enquiry, he showed medical reasons for his unavailability although ample opportunity was given to him to appear. Shri Rongpi also did not appear. The media reports in Assamese daily speaks of Rs.3 crores misappropriated in NREGA and IAY scheme in Diyanbra Development Block and involvement of Shri H.C. Talukdar. The BDO Shri Bolendra Ramchiary did not turn up for the enquiry, he showed medical reasons for his unavailability although ample opportunity was given to him to appear. Shri Rongpi also did not appear. Whereas Shri Talukdar after giving his statement preferred to stay away from the enquiry by giving lame excuses of unavailability on medical grounds and times stayed away without taking any steps. All this has been recorded in the note sheet. Now coming to the question of misappropriation of Govt. fund under NREGA and IAY scheme, I have recorded in the statement of Shri H.C. Talukdar that amounts were withdrawn in "self cheque". There is a question of transparency in such a situation. The money was given to "Group leaders" in cash, hence there is a doubt whether the entire amount was released to the beneficiaries with signature in the APR against a Project/Scheme or part of it or whether the amount was received in full but an amount was deducted from the beneficiaries' amount. In a situation like this where a program money is disbursed in cash should be done with a couple of respectable witness from a village at a central location so that the actual beneficiary gets his due share. But this was not practised in Daiyanbra Development Block. The amount was given to Group leader to disburse and collect the APR. Therefore, there is a question of transparency and leakage could have been avoided. It is agreed that the Banking coverage in NC Hills is poor but if the entire operation of payment to beneficiaries are made in cash it is not possible to keep the payments clean and transparent. The Block also failed to keep up with GOI guidelines to make payment in Bank account and Post Office Account. This perhaps suited the Block official including Shri H.C. Talukdar to line up their own pockets. Moreover, Shri Talukdar stated that they had an operation office located at Lanka. How could a Block run from a different district and in such a system the accounts could be fabricated and there is every possibility of corruption. In my opinion, the entire amount of more than Rs. 3 crore could not have been siphoned off by Shri Talukdar. Moreover, Shri Talukdar stated that they had an operation office located at Lanka. How could a Block run from a different district and in such a system the accounts could be fabricated and there is every possibility of corruption. In my opinion, the entire amount of more than Rs. 3 crore could not have been siphoned off by Shri Talukdar. There are powerful lobbies outside the office which supports such illegal and unjustified activities. Shri Talukdar has been supported by the BDO, JE and they too share responsibility of leakage of Govt. fund under the 2 schemes. Shri Talukdar maintained accounts assisted the BDO in drawing huge amounts against the schemes by "self cheques" on the basis of bills and vouchers/MR/MB submitted by the parties and JE. His role as that of a conduit in arranging for the leakage of fund. But it appears that he personally fell apart from a section of the society who singularly targeted him through various complaints and generated media reports against him. What could be the possible reason is anybody's guess. I have taken the statement of Shri Chakravarty, UDA of Addl. Chief Engineer office of PHED, Haflong and Shri S. Paul, Contractor, PHED. They have no dealing with Shri Talukdar but one thing is common in both the cases is that they have been intercepted by the police and recovered money in cash which according to Paul was meant to buy pipes against water supply schemes. Shri Paul and Shri Chakravarty were charged for arranging money for the militants. Now a case is pending before the NIA. With regard to giving money to the militant out of schematic fund cannot be established by me in this enquiry. This matter is under the police investigation and criminal charge will be framed against him and evidence will have to be produced before the appropriate court. After going through all the records and statement taken by me of Shri Talukdar, I am of the opinion that the charge of misappropriation of Rs.3 crore cannot be fully proved but he has to take responsibility of the leakage that is going on in his block being the part of the system. After going through all the records and statement taken by me of Shri Talukdar, I am of the opinion that the charge of misappropriation of Rs.3 crore cannot be fully proved but he has to take responsibility of the leakage that is going on in his block being the part of the system. The Block has no proper system of paying beneficiaries in transparent way and in the system prevailing the BDO, JE and group leaders are equally responsible as they have clearly violated the NREGA guidelines of not paying through Bank or Post office accounts to the beneficiaries. Moreover, the other parties who I have called for the DP as witness did not appear and I had to take an ex parte decision on the matter as it appears that they are not willing to cooperate with the enquiry. Shri Talukdar after giving his statement kept away from the entire DP even after ample opportunity was given to him to appear and rebut the other witness. Hence, a major punishment of reduction of rank under (iv) DP Rules is suggested as the case involves loss of Govt. money under the schemes and has turned out to be major scam in NC Hills and CBI has recovered money from some involved official in tune of crores which clearly speaks of money getting into official hands and now resurfacing into one or the other hand." 29. Thus, from the above, it is evident that even the Enquiry Officer was not sure about the involvement or extent of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged misappropriation of Government money. At one stage, Enquiry Officer opines that the entire amount of money could not have been siphoned off by the petitioner and that he was supported by the Block Development Officer (BDO) and Junior Engineer (JE) who too shared the responsibility of leakage of Government fund. If that be so and there is collective responsibility, then only one, in this case the petitioner, cannot be singled out and held responsible. 30. In the penultimate paragraph of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer says that the allegation regarding handing over money to the militants could not be established in the enquiry. If that be so and there is collective responsibility, then only one, in this case the petitioner, cannot be singled out and held responsible. 30. In the penultimate paragraph of the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer says that the allegation regarding handing over money to the militants could not be established in the enquiry. In regard to the charge of misappropriation of money to the tune of Rs.3 crores, the Enquiry Officer says that the charge cannot be fully proved but the petitioner has to take the responsibility of the leakage that was going on in his Block being a part of the system. Thus, the findings of the Enquiry Officer besides being vague and inconclusive is also based on suspicion and presumption which, as held by the Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya (supra), cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. 31. Furthermore, there is no date on the enquiry report and the record also does not disclose when it was handed over to the disciplinary authority. Even the impugned order of penalty dated 29.12.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority does not disclose when the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. However, the said order supports the contention of the petitioner that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him prior to the decision taken by the disciplinary authority to accept the report of enquiry as there is no mention about furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. The record is also silent in this regard. The enquiry report is an opinion of the Enquiry Officer which is a relevant material to be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority before taking a decision on the charge framed against a delinquent Government servant. Ultimately, it is the decision of the disciplinary authority whether to hold that the charge stood established or not. Therefore, principles of natural justice require that before taking such a decision, copy of the enquiry report is required to be furnished to the delinquent Government servant. The delinquent Government servant would then have an opportunity to point out, in his views, the mistakes or flaws in the enquiry report. Therefore, principles of natural justice require that before taking such a decision, copy of the enquiry report is required to be furnished to the delinquent Government servant. The delinquent Government servant would then have an opportunity to point out, in his views, the mistakes or flaws in the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority would then place all the materials before him including the response of the delinquent Government servant and after considering all the relevant materials, would be required to take a decision whether the charges has been proved or not. Thus, non-furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent Government servant would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. This aspect of the matter was elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 32. In a case of this nature, the course of action the Court would ordinarily adopt is to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to recommence the departmental proceeding from the stage of furnishing of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent Government servant, but in the present case, having noticed the breach of the principles of natural justice at almost every stage of the departmental proceeding including the mandatory requirement of Rule 9(2) of the 1964 Rules, it would be a futile exercise to remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority to recommence the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of furnishing of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 33. Accordingly and in the light of the discussions made above, the impugned order of penalty dated 29.12.2010 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed. Writ petition is allowed but without any order as to costs. 34. Record produced by Mr. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate, is returned back.