- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Labour Court has set aside the punishment order dated 30th December, 2008 which was challenged by the management before this court in W.P.(L) No. 679 of 2010. It appears that there were two separate charge -sheets and two separate punishment orders were passed and both came up for consideration before the Labour Court and the Labour Court set aside both the orders. One order was set aside on the ground that once a finding has been recorded in favour of the delinquent employee by the Enquiry Officer and if the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the finding and to hold the employee guilty, it is absolutely essential on the part of the disciplinary authority to communicate by a notice his proposal to disagree and the tentative reasons for such disagreement to enable the employee to meet the reasons.
(3.) ON the basis of the above, learned Single Judge, in absence of notice being given by the disciplinary authority as well as nonsupply of reason for disagreement to the delinquent, set aside the punishment awarded for first charge. For second charge the inquiry report was not provided to the delinquent officer in spite of his demand for the inquiry report and learned Single Judge held that in view of the above, the principle of natural justice has been violated. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a settled law that nonsupply of inquiry report in all cases cannot be treated to be non -compliance of principle of natural justice and the delinquent is required to show the prejudice being caused to him. However, so far first ground of nonsupply of the grounds for disagreement with the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority is concerned, that ground is not under challenge and the second ground is under challenge. The employee has already retired and punishment, if it is upheld, then it will deny only one increment to the delinquent.;