Mangtu Ram Vs State of Haryana

A.S. Gill, J.@mdashDuring the course of arguments, it is conceded at the Bar that before the punishment order, copy Annexure P-1, was passed against the present petitioner, the copy of the enquiry report was not served to him when the show cause notice was issued against him. The petitioner claimed that since the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him, his right to defence has been materially prejudiced. It is well settled now that if a departmental enquiry is conducted against the official and the enquiry is conducted by a person other than the punishing authority himself, the copy of the enquiry report has to be supplied to the official alongwith the show cause notice. The Apex Court has in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, held that the enquiry report has to be supplied before taking any action. This was further affirmed in the Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar 1993(5) SLR 532 : 1994(1) SCT 319 (SC). The action/punishment order passed against the petitioner suffers from legal infirmity, since it is based on enquiry report which was never served to the petitioner. In view of this matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, copy Annexure P-1, is quashed. However, the appropriate authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law from the stage of furnishing of copy of enquiry report.

2. Petition allowed.