Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This petition is directed against the order passed in September 1995, contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents the copy of impugned order has been enclosed as Annexure C.A.-l, wherein the date of impugned order has been mentioned as 7th July, 1995. By the impugned order after holding a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner who is Senior Marketing Inspector a penalty stopping two increments forever, censor entry and an adverse entry in the character roll have been inflicted against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order inter alia on the grounds that while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, he was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which were examined by the inquiry officer in departmental inquiry held against him. After holding disciplinary inquiry an inquiry report has been submitted by inquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of two charges mentioned in the charge sheet out of four charges but disciplinary authority did not furnish the copy of inquiry report along with any show cause notice to the petitioner rather on the basis of aforesaid inquiry report the disciplinary authority has straightway passed the impugned order against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to have his say in the matter in connection of findings of inquiry officer, which was submitted against him. Thus, the petitioner has been prejudiced in the departmental inquiry and accordingly the impugned order passed by disciplinary authority is not sustainable in the eye of law. The aforesaid submissions are based on allegation made in paras 18 to 21 of the writ petition, which has been replied by the respondents in paras 4,5,13 and 16 of the counter-affidavit. From a bare perusal of which there is no indication at all as to whether any show cause notice has been given to the petitioner along with findings of inquiry officer wherein the petitioner has been found guilty of two charges out of four charges levelled in the charge-sheet against him. Thus, in any considered opinion the petitioner has been denied of opportunity of hearing to have Iris say in the matter to make any comment over the findings of inquiry officer and make any representation before the disciplinary authority before passing impugned order against the petitioner.
(2.) In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered opinion that the impugned order is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner can be said to be not in consonance of the principles of natural justice and fair play hence not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. This view also finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 (61) FLR 736 (SC) and Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunaker, 1993 (67) FLR 1230 (SC).
(3.) However, the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to have his say in the matter by supplying a copy of inquiry report and asking his reply thereon. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition succeeds and allowed to the extent indicated herein before. Petition Allowed.;