S.D. Bajaj, J. - (1.) Both in Civil Writ Petitions No. 4454 and 4455 of 1981 the charges against the delinquent petitioners Prem Kumar and Mohinder Singh Cheema respectively are based on preliminary enquiries allegedly conducted against them two separately by Sarvshri S.S. Suri (Joint Director) and A.S. Brar (Deputy Director, Fields). Shri S.S. Suri submitted his reports in this regard on 5.6.1979, 6.6.1979 and 16.6.1979. While Shri A.S. Brar submitted his report on 16.6.1979. All these reports are duly mentioned in the list of documents relied upon by the prosecution which were supplied to the delinquent officials along with the charge sheet and have also been adverted to in the charge sheet itself as well. The two petitioners needed these reports to defend themselves and have been crying hoarse all through after 11.2.1980 and 21.2.1980 respectively that these may be supplied to them. The request made by the delinquent officials in this regard fell on deaf ears. Copies of the preliminary reports were, however, supplied to them only on 20.4.1981 along with notice Annexure P.15, for showing cause against contemplated action of dismissal from service proposed to be taken against them, on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Shri Lakhbir Singh, against them. Non-supply of copies of these reports obviously prejudiced the two delinquents in arranging their defence in the course of enquiry held by Shri Lakhbir Singh against them.
(2.) It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1623 ; The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, 1975(1) Services Law Reporter 2 and Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , as under: "Where the Government refused to its employee, who was dismissed, the copies of the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of preliminary inquiry preceding the commencement of the inquiry and copies of the documents said to have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority in order to establish the charges against the employee and even in this connection the reasonable request of the employee to have the relevant portions of the documents extracted with the help of his stenographer was refused and he was told to himself make such notes as he could, and the Government failed to show that no prejudice was occasioned to the employee on account of non-supply of copies of documents, the order of dismissal rendered by the disciplinary authority against the employee was violative of Article 311(2) inasmuch as the employee has been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself."
(3.) In the result, both the writs succeed and are allowed. Dismissal orders passed against the two petitioners are both quashed. Respondent-State may (if it is so advised) order a fresh enquiry against the two petitioners individually for the old charges served upon them on 24/28.1.1980. Necessary legal safeguards would, however, be observed by the State and the Enquiry Officer therein. Petition allowed.;