Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was appointed as Computer Data Entry Operator, initially on 01.02.2010, is aggrieved of the order of termination dated 12.10.2017.
(2.) Besides challenging the order of termination from service on the ground of breach of the rules of natural justice, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in W.P.(S) No.6524 of 2017, a learned Judge of this Court has interfered with the decision of discontinuation of Data Entry Operators and their engagement through Agency. The petitioner, though appointed on contract basis, in view of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.6524 of 2017, may seek parity on the question of his reinstatement, if others have been retained in service.
(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioner who was appointed on monthly remuneration of Rs.5600/- on the post of Computer Data Entry Operator, initially on 01.02.2010, was granted extension of service. On a complaint made by one Anand Pasari, Advocate, on 01.08.2013, alleging harassment in issuance of CST certificate for extraneous consideration, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner has taken a stand that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of the rules of natural justice. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner has, in fact, participated in the departmental enquiry and he was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. However, the materials produced by the respondents do not disclose that the alleged complaint by Sri Anand Pasari, Advocate was served upon the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report dated 21.09.2013 was also not served upon the petitioner and a perusal of the 2nd show-cause notice dated 01.08.2017 does not disclose the material imputation found true during the enquiry. It is not mentioned in the show-cause notice dated 01.08.2017 that it accompanies a copy of the enquiry report and while so, it stands admitted that a copy of the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner. The petitioner, in absence of the enquiry report, had no opportunity to respond to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on the basis of which he has suffered the penalty order dated 12.10.2017 and, thus, he is entitled in law to contend that he has suffered serious prejudice in the departmental enquiry conducted against him. In "Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727" and in "Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84" , it has been held that not only in cases in which the enquiring officer has recorded findings against the delinquent employee even in cases in which the findings recorded by the enquiring officer are favourable to the delinquent employee, the employee is entitled for supply of a copy of the enquiry report and failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report would render the penalty order unsustainable.;