Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar Singh vs Director/Chairman Basic Education ... on 21 October, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11675 of 2003 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- Director/Chairman Basic Education Board U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Singh,A.Ahmad,Awadhesh Kumar Mishra,Pradeep Chandra,V.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., ,R.K. Tripathi,U N Sharma Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard V. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner did not participate in inquiry proceedings, therefore, ex parte inquiry report has been submitted which culminated in order of removal dated 31.05.2000, whereagainst petitioner's appeal has also been rejected vide order dated 29.05.2002.
3. The only ground on which aforesaid orders are challenged is that even if the inquiry was conducted ex parte, it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority to serve a copy of inquiry report upon petitioner giving him opportunity to submit his reply to the findings of Inquiry Officer but the same having not been done, therefore, punishment order is violative of principle of natural justice.
4. However, record shows that Inquiry Officer made all out efforts and gave repeated opportunity to petitioner to participate in proceedings but petitioner after receipt of charge sheet disappeared and did not participate at all.
5. In this regard in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 Constitution Bench has held that supply of inquiry report is part of principle of natural justice but has further said that mere non supply of report will not vitiate the proceedings unless delinquent employee plead and prove that non supply of inquiry report cause prejudice to him. Relevant observation of Constitution Bench reads as under:
"When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the Rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the Rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice. "
6. In Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 Court in paras 21 and 44 said as under:
"21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.
44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show "prejudice". Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no Rule of universal application can be laid down. " (emphasis added)
7. In Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Sukhveer Singh, 2018(1) SCC 231 following aforesaid authorities Court said:
"7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report." (emphasis added)
8. In the present case I do not find any such pleading at all. Even in memo of appeal, which has been placed on record, I do not find any such pleading at all. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Constitution Bench, in absence of any pleading to prove that non supply of inquiry has caused prejudice to petitioner, in any manner, the same will not vitiate inquiry proceedings, particularly when petitioner himself has not participated in inquiry.
9. I, therefore, find no merit in writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 AK