Judgment:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11870 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11870 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY11 2014 Dr.
Sarav Pal Singh Bhatia .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana, for the State.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) vide which his services have been terminated by a non-speaking order.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that after issuance of the second show cause notice alongwith Enquiry Report to the petitioner, he filed a detailed representation dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P- 5) putting forth his objections to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
As prayed for, opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to him on 05.10.2011.
Another representation dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P- Harish Kumar 2014.02.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11870 of 2012 -2- 6) was also submitted and opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner.
On 13.10.2011, after giving him the opportunity of personal hearing, the said representation has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order.
Although the objections which have been mentioned by the petitioner in his representation dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) to some extent have been referred to in the impugned order but none of the objections which have been taken by the petitioner has been considered or decided by the punishing authority.
What has been observed finally by the competent authority is that on the basis of the facts and documents on record, has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner.
This, the counsel for the petitioner contends does not fulfill the mandate of law as has been laid down by this Court in P.K.Khanna versus National Fertilizers LTD.& another 2005 (2) SCT642 He accordingly contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the punishing authority has taken into consideration all the objections submitted by the petitioner through his representation dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-5).Even opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner and on considering those facts, final decision was taken by the authority to terminate the service of the petitioner.
The procedure as prescribed under the statutory rules have been duly complied with and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
Harish Kumar 2014.02.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11870 of 2012 -3- I find that the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are correct as is apparent from the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) where none of the objections and requests as have been made by the petitioner are taken into consideration and dealt with although mention of these objections and submissions to some extent have been referred to therein.
The Division Bench of this Court in P.K.Khanna's case (supra) in para 18 has held as follows:- “18.
We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that after the supply of enquiry report to a delinquent employee if he opts to submit his reply/objections against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is imperative upon the disciplinary authority to meet out the said challenge/objections and to respond with its own reasons in support of its conclusions.
Non observance of such a procedure would be negation of all tenets of natural justice and will render the mandatory requirement of supplying the enquiry report to an employee as an empty formality.
The consequences will be disastrous.
If the disciplinary authority is not required to give independent reasons in support of its conclusions, it will be nothing short of reverting to the same stage where 42nd amendment of the Constitution intended to bring but for the rider imposed by the Apex Court, firstly, in Mohd.
Ramzan Khan's case (supra) and thereafter in B.
Karunakaran's case (supra).In other words, giving liberty to the disciplinary authority to overlook the objections submitted by the delinquent employee against the Harish Kumar 2014.02.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11870 of 2012 -4- findings of the Enquiry Officer would be in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice which have been read into Article 311(1) of the Constitution by their Lordships in a catena of judgments referred to above.
We, therefore, hold that when the enquiry report has been supplied to a delinquent employee and he has chosen to submit his objections against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is imperative upon the disciplinary authority to meet out those objections and give reasons in support of its conclusions.
It cannot escape from the rigours of rules of natural justice, fair and just play merely by making a mechanical statement that it finds itself in complete agreement with the enquiry report.”
.
In view of the above observations of the Division Bench, the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 fails to pass the test as has been laid down therein.
The impugned order, thus, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
It shall be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order by considering the objections and submissions made by the petitioner in his representations dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) and 23.10.2011 (Annexure P-6).An opportunity of personal hearing be also granted to the petitioner before passing the final order.
The writ petition stands disposed of as such.
February 11, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.02.17 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document