- (1.) The solitary point involved in this writ petition is whether non-supply of the inquiry report amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Before dealing the aforesaid point, the brief facts are stated below:- (i) The petitioner was appointed as a primary teacher in a Primary School within the District of Burdwan on 20.07.2000. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred to PalaGram Primary School on and from the month of September, 2001. (ii) Because of her ill health, the petitioner became irregular in attending the school on and from 23.03.2002. The petitioner had undergone several treatments and ultimately after overcoming her ailment, she joined on 28.07.2003. (iii) The petitioner was subsequently issued a show cause notice by the District Primary School Council, Burdwan for her unauthorized absence. The inquiry authority was appointed but the petitioner did not appear before the said authority and ultimately the inquiry authority submitted its report to the Chairman of the Primary School Council, Burdwan being the disciplinary authority. (iv) Further show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority which was replied by the petitioner. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been inflicted the punishment by way of a dismissal from service.
(2.) The District Primary School Council took a plea that the petitioner never asked for the enquiry report and as such, the order of punishment should not be quashed on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report.
(3.) In support of the point as raised in this writ petition which has been formulated in the first paragraph of this judgment, the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 2 SCC 772 Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727 Union of India & Ors vs. M. B. Patnaik & Ors. and Union of India and ors. vs. P. N. L. Das, 1981 2 SCC 159 & Unreported judgment dated 29.04.2011 in W. P. No. 20303 (w) of 2007 and Sri Satyabrata Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2012 1 CalLT 430. The District Primary School Council, however, submits that the mere violation of the principles of natural justice would not invalidate the departmental proceedings unless a prejudice is shown by the petitioner and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Haryana Financial Corporation & anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, 2008 9 SCC 31 and State Bank India & Ors. vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors., 2011 2 SCC 316. Having heard the respective submissions, admittedly the petitioner was absent from duties for a considerable period of time. Although, according to the petitioner, she applied for sanction of the leave from time to time but the same has been denied by the respondent authorities. The aforesaid dispute is essentially a factual dispute and the writ court should not interfere when there is an existence of appellate forum under the statutory rules. But if the action of the administrative authority and/or statutory authority appears to be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the writ court assumes power under judicial review to set aside the same. The inquiry report is one of the cannon of the disciplinary proceeding and weighed much in a decision making process even if the employees does not ask for submission of the inquiry report. It is a bounden duty of the authority to furnish the report to the delinquent as held in case of B. Karunakar & Ors. in following words: "[iii] Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him. [iv] In the view that we have taken, viz. , that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan case should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or nonGovernment, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. " ;