Judgment:
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The plaintiff-respondents' suit for a declaration that the order dated March 29, 1984 removing him from service having been decreed by the learned lower Appellate Court, the defendant-Zila Parishad has come up in this second appeal. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The respondent-Chaman Lal was working as an Accountant with the Zila Parishad. On June 25, 1982, a charge-sheet levelling 10 charges was issued to him. After a considerable length of time, the respondent submitted his reply on September 23, 1983. He was called for a personal hearing on March 29, 1984 when the order of his removal from service was passed. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal having been dismissed, he approached the Civil Court through a suit for declaration that the order was wholly illegal and void. The order was primarily challenged on the ground that it had been passed without affording him a due and a reasonable opportunity or holding any enquiry as contemplated under the Rules.
3. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the orders dated 29-3-1984 and 12-2-1985 passed by the defendants are illegal, null and void OPP.
(2) Whether the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties OPD.
4. Finding that the order had been passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The findings of the learned Trial Court were reversed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. It was held that the respondent had not been given a due and a reasonable opportunity. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court, the Zila Parishad has come up in this second appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. L. Saggar, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.
6. The employees of the Zila Pirishad can be punished only in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 4, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, provides as under :--
'4. (1) Whenever it is proposed to impose any of the penalties given in rule 3 on a member, the competent authority shall reduce to writing the specific charges against a member and the substance of the grounds, in which it is proposed to impose the penalty
(2) A copy of the charges as well as the substance of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be communicated to the member indicating a reasonable period in which he can offer any explanation or produce any evidence.
(3) The competent authority shall consider the explanation and/or the evidence produced by the member and may conduct such enquiry as it thinks necessary before passing an order :
Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call certain witnesses which are, in its opinion, necessary.(4) The punishment order shall be in writing.'
7. A perusal of the above Rule shows that it is incumbent on the competent authority to convey specific charges and the substance of the grounds in which it is proposed to proceed against the employee. After consideration of the explanation, the authority has to consider and decide about the holding of an enquiry. Only then the authority can proceed to pass an order of punishment. It is no doubt correct that this Rule does not specifically describe the manner and method of recording of evidence or the grant of an opportunity to the employee to meet that evidence. However, it appears to be basic that a due and a reasonable opportunity has to be afforded to the employee. He must be given a chance to meet all the evidence that the competent authority has in its possession. This can be done only when the evidence in support of the charges is collected in his presence or conveyed to him. Thereafter, he should be given an opportunity to controvert that evidence by leading such evidence as may be in his possession. In the present case, nothing of the kind appears to have been done.
8. It is the admitted position that the respondent had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on September 23, 1983. Thereafter the only communication sent to him was the one by which he was culled for personal hearing on March 29, 1984. Even at the stage of personal hearing, it does not appear that the respondent was informed about the evidence that may have been collected by the competent authority in support of the charges. Nothing has been produced on the record to show that the evidence collected by the competent authority was put to the respondent or that his explanation in respect thereof was sought. In any event, no opportunity to rebut the evidence has been afforded to him, On the same day, viz. March 29, 1984, the Administrator passed a 14-Page order by which the respondent was ordered to be removed from service. A perusal of this order shows that certain documentary evidence was collected against the respondent. It has even been relied upon. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that it was ever put to the respondent. In this situation, it is apparent that the respondent was not afforded a due and a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend himself.
9. One cannot also lose sight of the fact that the respondent was due to superannuate on March 31, 1984. The impugned order was passed on March 29, 1984. In an effort to effectively punish the respondent, the competent authority overlooked the basic principle of natural justice, viz., the grant of a due and a reasonable opportunity, This has resulted in material miscarriage of justice. The impugned order is consequently vitiated. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court that the order is illegal has to be sustained
10. No other point has been raised.
11. The appeal is without any merit. It is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.