Shri Sumer Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation [Along ... on 6 November, 2006
14. Coming to the second objection about the non-availability of the vigilance report, all that is necessary to be said is that the objection of the vigilance has been made sufficiently clear in the notice to show cause as quoted above. There was no need to disclose anything more as the petitioner was required to meet only that part of the objection of the vigilance department. The petitioner was fully aware of the endorsement made by the management of M/s. Sakshi Automobiles and also by M/s. Amit Auto Traders & Industries. Therefore, the second objection of the petitioner is also not valid in facts. The petitioner's counsel has referred to the judgments in the cases of K.C. Rahi v. Board of Directors and Anr. 2005 (3) SLR 554, Sri Brindaban Patra v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. 2005 (3) SLR 720, Gurdip Singh, District Attorney v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2005 (3) SLR 759, Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab 2005 (2) SLR 255, Ram Ratan Tiwary v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2005(4) SLR 415 and Dashrathi Nayak v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench and Ors. 2004 (2) SLR 376 to support his argument that non-supply of the enquiry report is violative of the principles of natural justice. All the above rulings were on the point of supply of enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings in the present case were not disciplinary proceedings. They were only proceedings to discover if the appointment of petitioner to the post of ASK had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and if the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was genuine. The petitioner-Sumer Singh does not deny that he got the appointment on the basis of the experience certificate mentioned above and that the firm certifying also made the aforesaid endorsement on it. The petitioner knew all the facts on the basis of which the notice to show cause had been issued. There is no denial that the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself so far as the facts are concerned and impugned order was passed only after taking the explanation into consideration. There was no violation of the principle of natural justice. The citations of the petitioner are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case.