Mohinder Singh vs The State of Haryana and Another

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner against order of dismissal from service dated 3.6.1988.

The appellant (now represented by legal heirs) joined service in Panchayats Department on 2.7.1970. Charge-sheet was given to him alleging that he fabricated a letter dated 30.4.1986 in favour of Bhoop Singh, Gram Sachiv, purported to have been signed by Deputy Director Panchayats reinstating him in service. The appellant received illegal gratification of Rs. 2500/-. The appellant was also placed under suspension. He denied the charge. Inquiry officer was appointed who conducted inquiry and gave his report on 29.2.1988, exonerating the appellant. The disciplinary authority, however, dis-agreed with the report of the inquiry officer and after giving a show-cause notice along with reasons for disagreeing with the report of Inquiry Officer, impugned order of dismissal from service was passed. The appellant was also given an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order. The order of dismissal is a detailed one dealing with all the points raised on behalf of the appellant. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Against the said order, the appellant preferred a writ petition in the year 1989. The writ petition was contested and it was pointed out that even in the year 1986-87, the integrity of the appellant was held to be doubtful on the basis of his being habitual of accepting illegal gratification. Remarks were conveyed to him and his representation was rejected. The appellant was never supposed to deal with the case of Bhoop Singh but he did so and made a favourable report in his favour. Bhoop Singh was reinstated on the basis of said fabricated note.

Learned Single Judge held that the charge against the appellant stood proved and the appellant could not show as to how he dealt with the case of Bhoop Singh when he was not supposed to deal with such type of cases in his official capacity. Umed Singh, who was a relative of Bhoop Singh, appeared before the inquiry officer and made a statement that he gave Rs. 2500/-but not to the appellant. The inquiry officer held that payment by Umed Singh was not proved to have been made to the appellant. The disciplinary authority, however, drew inference that the payment was made to the appellant himself. Learned Single Judge also noted that appellant had made office note suggesting that Bhoop Singh be reinstated pending inquiry, which supported involvement of the appellant.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Only point raised on behalf of the appellant is that if the report of inquiry officer was to be dissented from, the disciplinary authority was required to give opportunity to the appellant before holding the charge to be proved. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on judgments of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Misra 1988 (7) SCC 84, Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and Lav Nigam v. Chairman and M.D.,ITI Ltd. and Anr. 2006 (9) SCC 440.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that this point was never raised before the learned Single Judge and in any case, no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

We find that the show cause notice dated 5.4.1988 was accompanied by reasons for which the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the report of the inquiry officer. Though learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the notice was only on the question of punishment, it was never considered that way by the appellant. He did represent against the finding and the reply so submitted, was duly considered. The issue was raised even at the time of personal hearing. The impugned order was finally passed it has been concluded that the charge against the appellant was proved.

Having regard to the detailed order of dismissal dealing with all points raised by the appellant, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to him by the format of show cause notice. The principles of natural justice cannot be treated to be hyper technical rules when due opportunity was given and no prejudice was caused.

Reference may be made to Canara Bank and Others Vs. Shri Debasis Das and Others, , J.A. Naiksatam v. Prothonotary and Senior Master 2004 (8) SCC 65 Para 7. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellant are distinguishable on facts when due opportunity has been given and charge is serious.

We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.