ARUNACHAL PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LTD Vs. RUDRA PRASHAD PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Nos. 1 to 4 were the respondents in Civil Rule No.2307/96., which was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order made on 12.8.96. by which the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and the impugned order thereby was set aside. It is this order which is called in question in this appeal by the appellants Nos. 1 to 4 on the grounds taken therein.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The respondent, Mr. Rudra Prashad Pradhan, had been serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd. in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as Range Manager for quite some time. A departmental proceeding was held against him presenting the charge sheet dated 4.1.88, annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On completion of the enquiry. the enquiring authority proceeded to impose penalty of reduction in the rank to a lower post of Deputy Range Manager for a period of three years without cumulative effect by an order made on 4.1.96. Aggrieved by this order of imposition of penalty, the respondent had approached this Court in the above writ petition. The petitioner had taken a number of grounds to attack the said order impugned in the writ petition. One of the grounds was that, the enquiring authority committed error in having not followed the relevant Service Rules in relation to departmental enquiry inasmuch as when the petitioner applied for certain documents to be supplied on 29th January, 1988, so as to enable him to present the written statement to defend himself in the enquiry, the said documents were not supplied to the petitioner. This non-supply of the documents in compliance with the mandatory requirements of law would vitiate the enquiry proceeding.

(3.) The learned Single Judge having considered in detail this legal question, has referred to certain authorities, viz., AIR 1988 SC 117, AIR 1986 SC 2118 and (1995) 1 SCC 404, and held that non-supply of the documents applied for by the writ petitioner and thereby proceeding to hold the enquiry proceeding would result in violation of the principles of natural justice apart from not following the mandatory requirements of the law as such and, thus, he held that the enquiry proceeding was vitiative on these grounds as a result of which he allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order of imposition of penalty.