BAWA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment of the courts below and find that no ground for interference is made out. The only two points raised before the Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, the first appellate court, were that the list of documents had not been supplied to the plaintiff with the result that the inquiry was vitiated. Reliance was once again placed on the cross-examination of Shivraj Singh, DW2 the inquiry officer. The appellate court found that Rule 16.24 of the Rules did not contemplate the preparation or supply of any such list. To my mind the appellate court has recorded a finding of fact after going into the entire matter which is borne out by the file Ex. P1 that such a list of witnesses as well as the list of documents had in fact supplied to the appellant on 19th January, 1976. Moreover, it is to be noted that the appellant had admitted his mis-conduct before the inquiry officer although he had pleaded extenuating circumstances. No prejudice, therefore, if at all can flow to the appellant on this account as well.

(3.) The second point urged before the appellate Court was that the appellant had not been produced before the punishing authority as was required by sub-rule (ix) of Rule 16.24(1) of the rules. To my mind, this argument is also untenable. The relevant entry at page 91 of the inquiry file reveals that a show cause notice was issued on 30th March, 1976 and a reply thereto had also been filed by the appellant on 9th April, 1976. In the light of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Parkash Chand, 1992 1 SCT 123, this amounts to substantial compliance with the provisions of sub- rule (ix) of Rules 16.24(1) of the Rules. In this case it was observed "We, therefore, hold that the issuance of a written show cause notice to the delinquent official and the consideration of the reply received in pursuance thereto, amounted to substantial compliance with sub-rule (ix) of Rule 16.24(1) of the Rules and the said exercise having gone through in the present case, fulfils the requirement of law. We are, however, not unmindful of the fact that written representations are often dealt with in a casual and perfunctory manner and to obviate this possibility we hold that should a delinquent official requests for a personal hearing, it must be given to him and its denial would vitiate any action against the official".