- (1.) AT all material times the petitioner was an employee of the respondent no, 1,in the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only point urged by the petitioner wns that before passing the impugned order of dismissal no copy of the enquiiy report was furnished to the petitioner and as such the said order amounts ot a violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground alone the order of dismissal should be quashed. No other point was urged at the hearing of the matter.
(2.) IT is needless to add that the petitioner preferred. an appeal against the order of dismissal which was passed on December 3, 1988 and the appeal was also dismissed.
(3.) BOTH sides very strongly relied on the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in AIR 1991. SC 471. In the said judgment the ronnie Supreme Court very firmly laid down the law that whenever there has been an Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding and the Enquiry Officer has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the enquiry, holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it if he so desires and non furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge "hereafter".;