In B. Karunakar, a three Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to companysider the effect of number supply of Inquiry Officers report to the delinquent.
Notice was issued by this Court on April 9, 2007.
The writ petitioner submitted a reply on December 14, 1999.
He was granted personal hearing and was dismissed from service by a speaking order dated April 4, 2002.
Hence, the Managing Director of the Corporation asked the Inquiry Officer vide a companymunication dated June 19, 2001 and sought clarification.
The delinquent filed his reply on February 8, 2002.
The delinquent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana which, as stated above, was allowed by the High Court setting aside the order dated April 4, 2002 passed by the Corporation.
It is this order which is challenged by the Corporation in the present appeal.
The Inquiry Officer called the delinquent to appear before him on August 7, 2001.
Meanwhile, the order passed by the High Court impugned in the present appeal was also stayed.
The matter thus has been placed for final disposal before us.
The Inquiry Officer then submitted his findings vide his report dated September 5, 2001 holding the delinquent guilty.
The Court observed that after the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, second opportunity companytemplated by Article 311 2 of the Constitution had been abolished, but principles of natural justice and fair play required supply of adverse material to the delinquent who was likely to be affected by such material.
The delinquent preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Corporation under the Regulations but the said appeal was also dismissed by the Board by an order dated January 27, 2005.
According to the Corporation, however, the report of the Inquiry Officer suffered from certain deficiencies.
The statement related to companymission and omission on the part of the writ petitioner.
The matter was remanded to the Inquiry Officer with the advice to clarify the points within 15 days.
The delinquent appeared and participated in the proceedings without any protest.
On January 10, 2008, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing on a number miscellaneous day.
Non supply of report of Inquiry Officer to the delinquent would companystitute infringement of doctrine of natural justice.
The respondent writ petitioner appeared through an advocate and waived service of numberice upon him.
A numberice was thereafter issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the delinquent on December 18/20, 2001 to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service under Regulation 41 1 e of the Regulations.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report on December 15, 2000 and exonerated the writ petitioner of all the charges.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
On August 17, 1999, he was working as Branch Manager at Branch Office, Rewari.
The Corporation initiated proceedings against the writ petitioner in accordance with Regulation 41 1 and 2 of Punjab Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations on the allegations enumerated in the Statement of Charges.
