Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1251 (HP)

Des Raj Rana v. Union Of India

2019-08-30

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner is in third round of litigation before this Court. The immediate cause of grievance of the petitioner is against the penalty imposed upon him on 08.06.2010 of reduction to lower grade, post and time scale, i.e. maximum pay of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) for a period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of issue of the order without cumulative effect subject to his good work and good conduct during this period. In case nothing adverse was found during this period, his post & time scale was to be reviewed after completion of three years from the date of orders by a Competent Selection Committee constituted as per the provisions of the 1st statutes of the NIT Act. The appeal preferred by petitioner against this penalty order was rejected on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-39). Petitioner, has challenged both these orders. 2. The facts relevant for adjudicating the lis, may be streamlined, hereunder:- 2(i). A charge-sheet, containing three charges, was issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure P-12). Petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet. 2(ii). Eventually, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, culminated in the inquiry report dated 19.01.2005. Petitioner was finally removed from service vide order dated 17.08.2005 (Annexure P-21). 2(iii). CWP No.869 of 2005, preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 14.08.2008, with following directions:- "(i). Parties are relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004. It will be open to the respondents herein to appoint a new inquiry officer in accordance with law; the petitioner will be deemed to be under suspension; (ii). The petitioner herein will be given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses who have been examined against him on 13.12.2004 and subsequent to that date. For this purpose, it will be open to the respondents herein to have additional statement(s) of other witnesses recorded again; (iii). The petitioner herein will be supplied the documents as asked for by him vide Annexure PJ (Item Nos.1 to 26) or any other documents which he may demand. All such documents will be supplied to him before further proceedings are taken in the inquiry. The petitioner will be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. (iv). The petitioner herein will be supplied the documents as asked for by him vide Annexure PJ (Item Nos.1 to 26) or any other documents which he may demand. All such documents will be supplied to him before further proceedings are taken in the inquiry. The petitioner will be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. (iv). Annexure PC, which is memorandum dated 28.04.2004, Annexure PL the inquiry report, Annexure PO, the punishment order passed on 17.08.2005 removing the petitioner from service and Annexure PP relieving the petitioner from his duties with effect from 18.08.2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. (v). The petitioner will submit to the respondents his address of all notices/communications so that there is no dispute regarding the correct address where the petitioner is to be served." In terms of judgment (supra), the inquiry report and the punishment order dated 17.08.2005 as well as the order of relieving the petitioner from duty w.e.f. 18.08.2005, were all quashed and set aside. The parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004, i.e. during the stage of inquiry proceedings. Implementation of judgment dated 14.08.2008, passed in CWP No.869/2005: 2(iv). In terms of the judgment (supra), the petitioner, who stood removed from service, was put under suspension as per the position existing on 13.12.2004, inter-alia, enabling him to have subsistence allowance, vide order dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure P-26), passed by the respondents. 2(v). Inquiry was conducted afresh from 13.12.2004 stage onwards and inquiry report was submitted by Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority on 24.05.2009. Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from charge No.2 & 3, but held him guilty of charge No.1. The Disciplinary Authority, constituted a Sub-Committee to furnish its recommendations on the Inquiry Officer's report. The Sub-Committee submitted its recommendations dated 10.09.2009 vide Annexure P-35. 2(vi). The Sub Committee's report, recommended exonerating the petitioner from Charge No.2, but at the same time, recommended to hold him guilty of Sub-charge (iv) of Charge No.3. On the basis of these recommendations of the Sub-Committee, the penalty of reduction to lower grade, post and time scale, i.e. maximum pay of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of issue of the order without cumulative effect, subject to his good work and good conduct during this period, was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-33). CWP No.7245/2010: 2(vii). Scale) for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of issue of the order without cumulative effect, subject to his good work and good conduct during this period, was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-33). CWP No.7245/2010: 2(vii). Petitioner preferred appeal dated 26.06.2010 against the above punishment imposed upon him. He preferred his second writ petition, i.e. CWP No.7245 of 2010, before this Court, inter alia, on the grounds that no decision on his appeal had been communicated to him. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.04.2012 with following directions: "3. It is undisputed before me that subsequent to the order passed, the parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004 when the inquiry was in progress and the charge-sheet had already been issued. It is also undisputed that subsequent thereto, inquiry proceedings were completed and penalty imposed. 4. An appeal against that order was preferred on 26.6.2010 to the Appellate Authority, in accordance with the service Rules governing the petitioner herein. His grievance in the writ petition is that a period of more than two years has elapsed and no decision has been taken on the appeal. 5. It would not be for this Court to assume jurisdiction of an Appellate Authority and to decide it on merits. This petition is disposed of with the request to the Hon'ble Minister that the appeal (Annexure: 30) be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. This order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering financial loss because imposition of punishment of reduction to the lower grade. No order as to costs." Instant CWP No.5069/2014: 2(viii). Pursuant to the above directions, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against punishment order was rejected on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-39). Aggrieved against this rejection, instant civil writ petition (CWP No.5069 of 2014), has been preferred by the petitioner, prayer for following relief(s):- "(i). That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondents for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-33 passed by respondent No.3, dated 8.6.2010 & Annexure P-39 dated 18.2.2014. (ii). That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Professor w.e.f. the due date i.e. 2.08.2004 with consequent benefits and full salary alongwith allowances. (iii). (ii). That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Professor w.e.f. the due date i.e. 2.08.2004 with consequent benefits and full salary alongwith allowances. (iii). Respondents may kindly be directed to pay to the petitioner for the period of suspension the actual salary alongwith allowances with consequent benefits. (iv). Any other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents under the law." Contentions and reasoning thereupon: 3. (I). Charge-sheet: Petitioner has raised various contentions in the writ petition; one of them, is that learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of CWP No.869/2005, though had relegated the parties to the stage as it existed on 13.12.2004, but, in terms of same judgment, the charge-sheet, issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2008, was also quashed therein; therefore, disciplinary proceedings were required to be initiated against the petitioner after issuing him fresh charge-sheet and not on the basis of already served charge-sheet. This contention has been raised merely for rejection. All the directions contained in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, reproduced in preceding para, are to be read conjointly. The cumulative effect of these conjoint directions, passed by learned Single Judge, was that:- the respondents were free to appoint a new Inquiry Officer; petitioner was be deemed to be under suspension; petitioner was to be given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses who had already been examined on 13.12.2004 and subsequent to that date; it was open for the respondents to record additional statements of other witnesses; petitioner was to be supplied the documents as asked for by him earlier; he was free to request for more documents, which he felt necessary; the petitioner was to be supplied all such documents and was to be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. Therefore, the submission that charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004 was quashed, in the judgment dated 14.08.2008, is not factually correct. This contention is against the letter and spirit of the judgment. The intention of learned Single Judge in not quashing the charge-sheet comes to fore even from reading of para 3 of the subsequent judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed in CWP No.7245 of 2010, observing thus:- "3. This contention is against the letter and spirit of the judgment. The intention of learned Single Judge in not quashing the charge-sheet comes to fore even from reading of para 3 of the subsequent judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed in CWP No.7245 of 2010, observing thus:- "3. It is undisputed before me that subsequent to the order passed, the parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004 when the inquiry was in progress and the charge-sheet had already been issued. It is also undisputed that subsequent thereto, inquiry proceedings were completed and penalty imposed." Therefore, no fault has been committed by the respondents in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings afresh as they existed on 13.12.2004 and carrying it forward from-there, on the basis of old chargesheet. Supply of inquiry report, Sub Committee's recommendations: 3(ii). Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Inquiry Officer, in his inquiry report dated 24.05.2009, had exonerated the petitioner from charge No.2 & 3, having not been proved and held him guilty only of charge No.1. The Sub-Committee, constituted by the Disciplinary Authority, for consideration of the inquiry report, dis-agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on sub charge (iv) of charge No.3 and recommended that this charge be treated as proved against the petitioner. 3(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the copy of inquiry report nor the copy of Sub-Committee's recommendations, disagreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer, have been supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner obtained these documents himself, after imposition of penalty upon him, under the Right to Information Act and are appended with the writ petition as Annexures P-34 & P-35. 3(iv). The fact of report of Inquiry Officer as well as the report of the Sub-Committee, having not been supplied to the petitioner, has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. Relevant extract from the reply filed by the respondents, in this regard, is reproduced as under:- "24. ...................... It is fact that the copy of the inquiry report dated 24/05/2009 and the subsequent report of the duly constituted sub committee was not supplied to the petitioner for written explanation because the Appointing/ Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind thoroughly and has concluded that the prolonged disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner on merit of the case. ........................" 3(v). ...................... It is fact that the copy of the inquiry report dated 24/05/2009 and the subsequent report of the duly constituted sub committee was not supplied to the petitioner for written explanation because the Appointing/ Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind thoroughly and has concluded that the prolonged disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner on merit of the case. ........................" 3(v). It is settled law that the copy of the inquiry report is required to be supplied to the delinquent official, more so, when non supply of same will cause prejudice to him. It is apt to refer to, Civil Appeal No.18448 of 2017, titled Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Others versus Sukhveer Singh, (2017) 13 Scale 365 wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:- "7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the writ petition filed by the respondent and we find no pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer's report alongwith the show cause notice. We are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by the supply of the report of the inquiry officer alongwith the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice." In Civil Appeal No.5604/2019, titled State Bank of India & Ors. versus Mohammad Badruddin, decided on 16.07.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "25. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice." In Civil Appeal No.5604/2019, titled State Bank of India & Ors. versus Mohammad Badruddin, decided on 16.07.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "25. In Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , it is categorically held that when the Inquiry Report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the Disciplinary Authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that Authority must give the delinquent an opportunity of being heard, for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. The Court held as under: "17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case, (1963) AIR SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295 ] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority." (emphasis supplied) In, LPA No.62 of 2010, titled Kashmir Chand versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corportion and Ors., (2014) 2 ShimLC 1072 decided on 19.06.2014, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, has observed as under:- "17. Averting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Inquiry Officer, after coming to the conclusion that Charges No.1, 3 and 4 were not proved and that only charge No.2 was proved, submitted the inquiry report to respondent No.2/Divisional Manager, who, vide Memorandum dated 12th August, 1996, (Annexure A-4), disagreed with the inquiry report and recorded the finding that major penalty deserves to be imposed upon the writ petitioner/ appellant, which is against the principles laid down by the Apex Court. It was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent official an opportunity to represent before recording its findings, which has not been done in the case of the writ petitioner." (emphasis supplied) It is admitted position that neither the copy of inquiry report nor the copy of the Sub-Committee's report was supplied to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer though had exonerated the petitioner from articles of charge Nos.2 & 3, but Sub Committee differed from the Inquiry Officer's finding. In the facts of the case, a definite prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because of non-supplying of the inquiry report as well as non-supplying of the report of Sub-Committee. Even, non supply of inquiry report, which held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1, caused prejudice to him. Without supplying him the inquiry report, Sub Committee deliberated on the inquiry report and recommended reversal of findings on article of charge No.3. Petitioner has specifically set up a case of having been prejudiced on account of non supply of these reports. Point is answered accordingly. 4. Various other contentions have also been raised by the petitioner in instant writ petition. Petitioner has specifically set up a case of having been prejudiced on account of non supply of these reports. Point is answered accordingly. 4. Various other contentions have also been raised by the petitioner in instant writ petition. In view of the order, which is being passed hereinafter, it is not necessary at this stage to go into other contentions raised by the petitioner in the instant petition. It will be open for the petitioner to raise these contentions at an appropriate stage, in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i). Punishment order (Annexure P-33), dated 08.06.2010 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18.02.2014 ((Annexure P-39), are quashed and set aside. All consequential actions shall follow; & (ii). The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner, inviting his response to the enquiry report dated 24.05.2009 (Ext.P-34) as well as to the report of Sub Committee dated 10.09.2009 (Ext.P-35), within a period of four weeks from today. Respondents are further directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person and thereafter, to take appropriate decision in the matter. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months. Petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, in case of adverse decision. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner is in third round of litigation before this Court. The immediate cause of grievance of the petitioner is against the penalty imposed upon him on 08.06.2010 of reduction to lower grade, post and time scale, i.e. maximum pay of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) for a period of 3 years w.e.f. the date of issue of the order without cumulative effect subject to his good work and good conduct during this period. In case nothing adverse was found during this period, his post & time scale was to be reviewed after completion of three years from the date of orders by a Competent Selection Committee constituted as per the provisions of the 1st statutes of the NIT Act. The appeal preferred by petitioner against this penalty order was rejected on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-39). Petitioner, has challenged both these orders. 2. The facts relevant for adjudicating the lis, may be streamlined, hereunder:- 2(i). The appeal preferred by petitioner against this penalty order was rejected on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-39). Petitioner, has challenged both these orders. 2. The facts relevant for adjudicating the lis, may be streamlined, hereunder:- 2(i). A charge-sheet, containing three charges, was issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure P-12). Petitioner filed his reply to the charge sheet. 2(ii). Eventually, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, culminated in the inquiry report dated 19.01.2005. Petitioner was finally removed from service vide order dated 17.08.2005 (Annexure P-21). 2(iii). CWP No.869 of 2005, preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 14.08.2008, with following directions:- "(i). Parties are relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004. It will be open to the respondents herein to appoint a new inquiry officer in accordance with law; the petitioner will be deemed to be under suspension; (ii). The petitioner herein will be given an opportunity to cross examine those witnesses who have been examined against him on 13.12.2004 and subsequent to that date. For this purpose, it will be open to the respondents herein to have additional statement(s) of other witnesses recorded again; (iii). The petitioner herein will be supplied the documents as asked for by him vide Annexure PJ (Item Nos.1 to 26) or any other documents which he may demand. All such documents will be supplied to him before further proceedings are taken in the inquiry. The petitioner will be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. (iv). Annexure PC, which is memorandum dated 28.04.2004, Annexure PL the inquiry report, Annexure PO, the punishment order passed on 17.08.2005 removing the petitioner from service and Annexure PP relieving the petitioner from his duties with effect from 18.08.2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. (v). The petitioner will submit to the respondents his address of all notices/communications so that there is no dispute regarding the correct address where the petitioner is to be served." In terms of judgment (supra), the inquiry report and the punishment order dated 17.08.2005 as well as the order of relieving the petitioner from duty w.e.f. 18.08.2005, were all quashed and set aside. The parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004, i.e. during the stage of inquiry proceedings. Implementation of judgment dated 14.08.2008, passed in CWP No.869/2005: 2(iv). The parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004, i.e. during the stage of inquiry proceedings. Implementation of judgment dated 14.08.2008, passed in CWP No.869/2005: 2(iv). In terms of the judgment (supra), the petitioner, who stood removed from service, was put under suspension as per the position existing on 13.12.2004, inter-alia, enabling him to have subsistence allowance, vide order dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure P-26), passed by the respondents. 2(v). Inquiry was conducted afresh from 13.12.2004 stage onwards and inquiry report was submitted by Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority on 24.05.2009. Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from charge No.2 & 3, but held him guilty of charge No.1. The Disciplinary Authority, constituted a Sub-Committee to furnish its recommendations on the Inquiry Officer's report. The Sub-Committee submitted its recommendations dated 10.09.2009 vide Annexure P-35. 2(vi). The Sub Committee's report, recommended exonerating the petitioner from Charge No.2, but at the same time, recommended to hold him guilty of Sub-charge (iv) of Charge No.3. On the basis of these recommendations of the Sub-Committee, the penalty of reduction to lower grade, post and time scale, i.e. maximum pay of Lecturer (Sr. Scale) for a period of three years w.e.f. the date of issue of the order without cumulative effect, subject to his good work and good conduct during this period, was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2010 (Annexure P-33). CWP No.7245/2010: 2(vii). Petitioner preferred appeal dated 26.06.2010 against the above punishment imposed upon him. He preferred his second writ petition, i.e. CWP No.7245 of 2010, before this Court, inter alia, on the grounds that no decision on his appeal had been communicated to him. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.04.2012 with following directions: "3. It is undisputed before me that subsequent to the order passed, the parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004 when the inquiry was in progress and the charge-sheet had already been issued. It is also undisputed that subsequent thereto, inquiry proceedings were completed and penalty imposed. 4. An appeal against that order was preferred on 26.6.2010 to the Appellate Authority, in accordance with the service Rules governing the petitioner herein. His grievance in the writ petition is that a period of more than two years has elapsed and no decision has been taken on the appeal. 5. 4. An appeal against that order was preferred on 26.6.2010 to the Appellate Authority, in accordance with the service Rules governing the petitioner herein. His grievance in the writ petition is that a period of more than two years has elapsed and no decision has been taken on the appeal. 5. It would not be for this Court to assume jurisdiction of an Appellate Authority and to decide it on merits. This petition is disposed of with the request to the Hon'ble Minister that the appeal (Annexure: 30) be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. This order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering financial loss because imposition of punishment of reduction to the lower grade. No order as to costs." Instant CWP No.5069/2014: 2(viii). Pursuant to the above directions, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against punishment order was rejected on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-39). Aggrieved against this rejection, instant civil writ petition (CWP No.5069 of 2014), has been preferred by the petitioner, prayer for following relief(s):- "(i). That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondents for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-33 passed by respondent No.3, dated 8.6.2010 & Annexure P-39 dated 18.2.2014. (ii). That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Professor w.e.f. the due date i.e. 2.08.2004 with consequent benefits and full salary alongwith allowances. (iii). Respondents may kindly be directed to pay to the petitioner for the period of suspension the actual salary alongwith allowances with consequent benefits. (iv). Any other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents under the law." Contentions and reasoning thereupon: 3. (I). (iv). Any other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents under the law." Contentions and reasoning thereupon: 3. (I). Charge-sheet: Petitioner has raised various contentions in the writ petition; one of them, is that learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of CWP No.869/2005, though had relegated the parties to the stage as it existed on 13.12.2004, but, in terms of same judgment, the charge-sheet, issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2008, was also quashed therein; therefore, disciplinary proceedings were required to be initiated against the petitioner after issuing him fresh charge-sheet and not on the basis of already served charge-sheet. This contention has been raised merely for rejection. All the directions contained in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge, reproduced in preceding para, are to be read conjointly. The cumulative effect of these conjoint directions, passed by learned Single Judge, was that:- the respondents were free to appoint a new Inquiry Officer; petitioner was be deemed to be under suspension; petitioner was to be given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses who had already been examined on 13.12.2004 and subsequent to that date; it was open for the respondents to record additional statements of other witnesses; petitioner was to be supplied the documents as asked for by him earlier; he was free to request for more documents, which he felt necessary; the petitioner was to be supplied all such documents and was to be given reasonable and fair opportunity of examining evidence in his defence. Therefore, the submission that charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004 was quashed, in the judgment dated 14.08.2008, is not factually correct. This contention is against the letter and spirit of the judgment. The intention of learned Single Judge in not quashing the charge-sheet comes to fore even from reading of para 3 of the subsequent judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed in CWP No.7245 of 2010, observing thus:- "3. It is undisputed before me that subsequent to the order passed, the parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004 when the inquiry was in progress and the charge-sheet had already been issued. It is undisputed before me that subsequent to the order passed, the parties were relegated to the position as it existed on 13.12.2004 when the inquiry was in progress and the charge-sheet had already been issued. It is also undisputed that subsequent thereto, inquiry proceedings were completed and penalty imposed." Therefore, no fault has been committed by the respondents in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings afresh as they existed on 13.12.2004 and carrying it forward from-there, on the basis of old chargesheet. Supply of inquiry report, Sub Committee's recommendations: 3(ii). Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Inquiry Officer, in his inquiry report dated 24.05.2009, had exonerated the petitioner from charge No.2 & 3, having not been proved and held him guilty only of charge No.1. The Sub-Committee, constituted by the Disciplinary Authority, for consideration of the inquiry report, dis-agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on sub charge (iv) of charge No.3 and recommended that this charge be treated as proved against the petitioner. 3(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the copy of inquiry report nor the copy of Sub-Committee's recommendations, disagreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer, have been supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner obtained these documents himself, after imposition of penalty upon him, under the Right to Information Act and are appended with the writ petition as Annexures P-34 & P-35. 3(iv). The fact of report of Inquiry Officer as well as the report of the Sub-Committee, having not been supplied to the petitioner, has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. Relevant extract from the reply filed by the respondents, in this regard, is reproduced as under:- "24. ...................... It is fact that the copy of the inquiry report dated 24/05/2009 and the subsequent report of the duly constituted sub committee was not supplied to the petitioner for written explanation because the Appointing/ Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind thoroughly and has concluded that the prolonged disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner on merit of the case. ........................" 3(v). It is settled law that the copy of the inquiry report is required to be supplied to the delinquent official, more so, when non supply of same will cause prejudice to him. ........................" 3(v). It is settled law that the copy of the inquiry report is required to be supplied to the delinquent official, more so, when non supply of same will cause prejudice to him. It is apt to refer to, Civil Appeal No.18448 of 2017, titled Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Others versus Sukhveer Singh, (2017) 13 Scale 365 wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:- "7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the writ petition filed by the respondent and we find no pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer's report alongwith the show cause notice. We are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by the supply of the report of the inquiry officer alongwith the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice." In Civil Appeal No.5604/2019, titled State Bank of India & Ors. versus Mohammad Badruddin, decided on 16.07.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "25. In Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , it is categorically held that when the Inquiry Report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the Disciplinary Authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that Authority must give the delinquent an opportunity of being heard, for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. The Court held as under: "17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case, (1963) AIR SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295 ] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The Court held as under: "17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case, (1963) AIR SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295 ] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority." (emphasis supplied) In, LPA No.62 of 2010, titled Kashmir Chand versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corportion and Ors., (2014) 2 ShimLC 1072 decided on 19.06.2014, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, has observed as under:- "17. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority." (emphasis supplied) In, LPA No.62 of 2010, titled Kashmir Chand versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corportion and Ors., (2014) 2 ShimLC 1072 decided on 19.06.2014, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, has observed as under:- "17. Averting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the Inquiry Officer, after coming to the conclusion that Charges No.1, 3 and 4 were not proved and that only charge No.2 was proved, submitted the inquiry report to respondent No.2/Divisional Manager, who, vide Memorandum dated 12th August, 1996, (Annexure A-4), disagreed with the inquiry report and recorded the finding that major penalty deserves to be imposed upon the writ petitioner/ appellant, which is against the principles laid down by the Apex Court. It was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent official an opportunity to represent before recording its findings, which has not been done in the case of the writ petitioner." (emphasis supplied) It is admitted position that neither the copy of inquiry report nor the copy of the Sub-Committee's report was supplied to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer though had exonerated the petitioner from articles of charge Nos.2 & 3, but Sub Committee differed from the Inquiry Officer's finding. In the facts of the case, a definite prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because of non-supplying of the inquiry report as well as non-supplying of the report of Sub-Committee. Even, non supply of inquiry report, which held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1, caused prejudice to him. Without supplying him the inquiry report, Sub Committee deliberated on the inquiry report and recommended reversal of findings on article of charge No.3. Petitioner has specifically set up a case of having been prejudiced on account of non supply of these reports. Point is answered accordingly. 4. Various other contentions have also been raised by the petitioner in instant writ petition. In view of the order, which is being passed hereinafter, it is not necessary at this stage to go into other contentions raised by the petitioner in the instant petition. It will be open for the petitioner to raise these contentions at an appropriate stage, in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the order, which is being passed hereinafter, it is not necessary at this stage to go into other contentions raised by the petitioner in the instant petition. It will be open for the petitioner to raise these contentions at an appropriate stage, in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i). Punishment order (Annexure P-33), dated 08.06.2010 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 18.02.2014 ((Annexure P-39), are quashed and set aside. All consequential actions shall follow; & (ii). The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner, inviting his response to the enquiry report dated 24.05.2009 (Ext.P-34) as well as to the report of Sub Committee dated 10.09.2009 (Ext.P-35), within a period of four weeks from today. Respondents are further directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person and thereafter, to take appropriate decision in the matter. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of four months. Petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, in case of adverse decision. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.