SHABIHUL HASNAIN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Singh for the opposite parties, who have placed record before this Court and says that the writ petition may be decided at this stage.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief is that a show-cause notice dated 27.5.2008 was served on the petitioner on 31.5.2008 levelling certain allegations against him, to which the petitioner has made specific reply dated 12.6.2008 denying the allegations made in the notice. It has been averred in para 13 of the writ petition that the contents of the reply dated 12.6.2008 has not been considered at any level bonajide and the inquiry officer has submitted ex parte inquiry report without conducting the proper inquiry and no date, place and time for oral inquiry was fixed by the Inquiry Officer. It has been averred that the said inquiry report was never served to the petitioner and in gross violation of the mandatory provisions, a further notice dated 24.7.2008 was served to the petitioner and with the said notice also no inquiry report was served upon him. In response to this notice dated 24.7.2008, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 13.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reply submitted to the charges has not been considered by the opposite parties and the inquiry report has been submitted without conducting the proper inquiry. He was also not furnished copy of the inquiry report, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice in awarding of the punishment by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) IN the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 : 2008 (6) AWC 6188 (SC), in para 21 of the report Hon'ble Apex Court ruled as under : "From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar, it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the Court on that point the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside." ;