N.G. Das, J.@mdashBy means of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner Shri Hauzel Haukung has
challenged the Validity of the order of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of manipur, dated 11th February, 1994 contained in
Annexure-A/10 and made a prayer for quashing the same.
2. I have heard Mr. Ng Kumar the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. R.K. Sanajnoba Singh, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
3. The only question that falls for decision in this ease is whether the disciplinary authority, namely, the Respondent No. I is entitled to pass the
impugned order contained in, Annexure-A/10) without furnishing a copy of the report of the enquiring officer to the Petitioner, namely, the
delinquent official.
4. A disciplinary proceeding was started against the Petitioner on the allegation that while functioning as Cashier of the Divisional Forest Office,
Southern Forest Divn. Office, Churachandpur during the period from 8-6-87 to 31-3-89 he violated the Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 inasmuch as that he violated the order/instructions of the superior authority in encashing an amount of Rs. 2.70 lakh
belonging to the Government with some ulterior motive, The matter was assigned to some enquiring officer who after making necessary enquiry as
per the procedure held the Petitioner guilty of the charge that was framed against him, On the basis of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority
namely, the Principal Conservator of Forest passed the impugned order.
5. The only point of criticism advanced by Mr. Ng. Kumar Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned
order is bad in law and that cannot be sustained simply because no copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the Petitioner before the impugned
order was passed. In support of his contention Mr. Kumar has placed reliance in a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of
India and Ors. Appellants v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, Respondent, reported in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, In the aforesaid
judgment Their Lordships held under para 13 that:
Disciplinary inquiry is quasi-judicial in nature. There is a charge and a denial followed by an inquiry at which evidence is led and assessment of the
material before conclusion is reached. These facets do make the matter quasi-judicial and attract the principles of natural justice. With the Forty
Second Amendment, the delinquent officer is not associated with the disciplinary inquiry beyond the recording of evidence and the sub-missions
made on the basis of the material to assist the Inquiry Officer to come to his conclusions. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent
officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing
the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority, The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer
records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned, In a quasi-judicial matter if the delinquent is being
deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his
conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected.
6. The next decision referred to by Mr. Kumar is the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Appellants v. B. Karunakar and
Ors. Respondents reported in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., In this judgment also Their Lordships examined
the scope of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and held:
The proviso to Article 311(2) in effect accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry,
which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority (the enquiry officer being only his delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and
to assist him), the employees'' reply to the enquiry officer''s report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an
integral part of such inquiry.
Hence, when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer''s
report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges
leveled against him. That right is a part of the employee''s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry
Officer''s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove
his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.
7. It would, therefore be quite apparent from the decisions referred to above that the delinquent official is entitled to get a copy of the report of the
Enquiry Officer when enquiry Officer is an officer other than the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Enquiry
Officer who submitted the report of the disciplinary proceeding is an officer other than the disciplinary authority.
8. Mr. R.K. Sanajaoba, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents also submittal that in view of the aforesaid decisions a
delinquent official is entitled to get a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer in case the report goes against him and on the hash'' of that report his
departmental authority awards any son of punishment
9. But what he has contended quite strenuously is that this requirement of furnishing copy of the report of the Enquiry, Officer can be dispensed
with if the delinquent of finial is given post decisional hearing after furnishing copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent official. In support of his
content ion Mr. Sanajaoba has referred to a decision of this Court reported in (1993) 1 GLR 204. The other decision referred to by the learned
Counsel for the Respondents is of the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India which is most popularly known as Bhopal Gas Disaster case
reported in Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India,
10. So far an the case of (1993) I GLR 204 is concerned I find that this is a case in respect of acceptance of some renders. Actually the court was
not called upon to give a decision in respect of the provisions laid down under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Similarly, in the case of Bhopal
Gas Disaster the court was not called upon to give a decision as to this scope and ambit of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. So, these two
decisions do not appear to be applicable to the present case.
11. Mr. Kumar in support of his contention has also placed reliance upon a decision rendered in the case of K.I. Shephard and Ors. etc.,
Petitioners v. Union of India and Ors. Respondents reported in K.I. Shephard and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, In this case Their
Lordships observed in para 16 of the Judgment that there is no jurisdiction to think of a post decisional hearing. On the other band, the normal rule
should apply.
12. So, upon consideration of all the facts, circumstances and the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned order of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 11th February, 1994 contained in Annexure -A/10 is not tenable in law
and accordingly it is quashed.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has already been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and hence no
fresh copy of the enquiry reports is required to be supplied to him. The Petitioner is, therefore, granted 10 days time from today to submit this
reply, if any, to meet, explain and controvert the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority who in turn must dispose of the matter after affording
fair opportunity to the Petitioner to meet the report of the enquiry officer within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the reply of
the Petitioner.
14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. But under the circumstances make no order as to costs