- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure P.6), whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated and order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P.8), whereby an appeal against the said order was dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide memo dated 15.11.2002. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. On receipt of the inquiry report, the competent authority issued a show cause notice. In the show cause notice, the competent authority recorded that it finds no reasons to disagree with the Inquiry Report and it has been tentatively decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. The copy of the Inquiry Report was enclosed with the show cause notice. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to such show cause notice, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was passed, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (Civil Writ Petition No. 17710 of 2005 decided on 15.5.2006) (Annexure P.9), to contend that the decision of the competent authority agreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer without supplying the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice and is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar, (1993)4 SCC 727. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner has suffered prejudice on account of the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, the order of punishment is not sustainable.;