DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon in the cooperative society, has been dismissed from service by impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the an order petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On account of alleged misconduct he was placed under suspension by impugned order dated 31.12.2004. A charge-sheet dated 7.3.2005 was served on the petitioner but it appears from the impugned order that petitioner has not submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer has submitted a report on 13.4.2005. While assailing the impugned order it has been submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that neither oral evidence Was record nor opportunity was given to the petitioner and to defend himself. No date, time and place was fixed by the Inquiry Officer for providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend himself. It has also been submitted that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner. In Paragraph 19 of the writ petition in has been specifically pleaded that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner. In response thereto in Paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit the allegation has been denied. However, it has not been brought on record that in what manner the notice was served along with the enquiry report. A bald and vague denial by the respondents seems to have been made to conceal the material facts relating to serving of enquiry report.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Apex Court reported in 1991 (1) SCC 588, Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner himself has not submitted any response to the charge-sheet, there was no occasion on the part of the contesting respondents to proceed with the enquiry and provide opportunity of hearing or cross-examine to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the respondents that sine the petitioner has not submitted reply to the charge-sheet, even if, the enquiry report was not served, it shall not make any difference. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is settled proposition of law mat even if a delinquent employee does not submit a response to the charge-sheet or in any manner does not cooperate, it shall be incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to complete the enquiry ex-parte, record evidence and fix a date for defence and thereafter submit a report to the competent authority. After receipt of the report in view of law settled by Apex Court it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to serve a show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report on the person who has been charge-sheeted. The law is very well settled that it shall always be incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to complete the enquiry in due compliance of the principles of natural justice and even if no reply is submitted the Inquiry Officer must complete the enquiry ex-parte after recording the evidence of the witnesses vide 2003 LCD 610, Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P.C.S.F.F. Ltd.; 2000 LCD 1239, Om Pal Singh v. D.D.O., Gaziabad and others; 1998 (6) SCC 651, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan lal and another and 1999(6) SCC 257, K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P. and another.
(3.) SINCE the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner, the petitioner was precluded to submit a response showing alleged illegality committed by the Inquiry Officer. In case the enquiry report would have been served on the petitioner then he should have pointed out the competent authority the illegality committed by the Inquiry Officer. Keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court long back in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) the impugned order suffers from substantial illegality and is violative or principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed.;