- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termina tion/dismissal dated 20th July, 1990 as well as the charge-sheet on the basis of which the said order was passed.
(2.) THE facts of the case, as unfolded in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was Ex.-Army man, was appointed as a Clerk by the Collector/president, District Soldiers (Sailers and Airmen's) Board, Bulandshahr, vide order dated 17-4-70. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Alongwith the letter dated 16-6-1989 charge-sheet of the same date was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2, under the signature of Col. P. P. S. Yadav, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation of six charges levelled against him. THE charges were based on the documents/material referred to and relied upon in charge-sheet, but the copies of the said documents were not sup plied to the petitioner. Petitioner on receipt of the charge-sheet, requested the respon dent No. 2. to supply the copies of the docu ments, which were referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet; but they were not supplied to him. In the absence of the docu ments referred to above, petitioner was not in a position to file his effective reply of the aforesaid charge-sheet. However, peti tioner submitted his reply to the Enquiry Officer Mr. C. S. Chauhan on 29-6-89 alongwith the covering letter stating therein that he will like to produce the evidence oral and documentary in support of his case and he will also like to cross-examine the witnesses, if produced against him. Petitioner com plained that the proceedings were initiated and conducted at the instance of one Mr. R. P. Singh, who was instrumental against him and was himself responsible for the manipulation of the documents/official records, which were subject-matter of the charges levelled against the petitioner. THE Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14-10-89 called upon Sri R. P. Singh and other persons named in paragraph 16 of the writ petition to appear before him and to produce the evidence in respect of the charges. He has also fixed 20-10-89 for appearance of the said persons before him. However the said order was never complied with. Neither Mr. R. P. Singh, nor other persons appeared before the Enquiry Officer. THE requisite documents were also not produced by them. THE Enquiry Officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with the Rules ap peared to have submitted some report against the petitioner. However, the said report did not see the light of the day and was never communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that no definite findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the char ges levelled against the petitioner. How ever, respondent No. 2 without supplying the copy of the report of enquiry to the petitioner and without affording an oppor tunity to defend himself and to show cause against the proposed punishment, dis missed him from service in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as viola tion of provisions of Article 311 of the Con stitution of India vide order dated 20- 7-89. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed denying the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been asserted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing to defend himself. However, the fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of termina tion/dismissal has been passed, has not been denied in the counter affidavit. The copy of the enquiry report has also not been an nexed with the counter affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents is that it was not necessary to supply the copy of the enquiry report or to issue any show cause notice before passing the order of dismissal. In the rejoinder affidavit the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reaf firmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the order of dis missal dated 20-7-90 passed by respondent No. 2 was wholly arbitrary as the same was passed without affording an opportunity to defend to the petitioner. He submitted that it was obligatory upon respondent No. 2 to supply the copy of the alleged enquiry report to the petitioner to afford him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, before passing the order of termination/dismissal No. such op portunity having been afforded to him, therefore the impugned order was hit by the principles of natural justice as well as provisions of Article 311 of the Constitu tion of India. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that it was also obligatory upon the contesting respondents to supply the copies of the documents to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet, which were referred to and relied upon in support of the charges ; the said documents were not supplied to the petitioner inspite 10 the request made by him. The petitioner was, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. In support of his submis sions, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following rulings : Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 S. C. 471. Managing Director E. C. I. L. v. B. Karunakar,alr 1994 S. C. 1974.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand, contended that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with law and that it was not necessary for the respon dent No. 2 to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner in view of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. From the material on the record, it is clearly proved that the documents, which were referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet, were not supplied to the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed his reply/explanation of the charges levelled against him. It is also not disputed that the copy of the enquiry report was never sup plied to the petitioner and the impugned order of termination was passed by the respondent No. 2 against him. In the im pugned order itself it has been observed as under:;