BASHIR AHMED Versus STATE
This appeal challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a former Kanungo, from service. The appellant was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings where an Enquiry Officer found certain charges proved. The core legal question was whether the appellant was prejudiced in his defense because he was allegedly not provided with a copy of the enquiry report prior to the show-cause notice. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the Collector had explicitly ordered the issuance of the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. Furthermore, the case diary indicated that the appellant had participated in numerous hearings without ever raising a grievance regarding the non-receipt of the report. The Court held that, based on the official record and the presumption of regularity in official acts, it must be presumed that the enquiry report was duly supplied. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contention that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself.
- Whether the failure to supply a copy of an enquiry report to a civil servant during disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice?
- Can a court presume that an official order directing the supply of an enquiry report was complied with in the absence of an objection on the record?
- Does the absence of a grievance regarding the non-receipt of an enquiry report in the case diary preclude a later claim of prejudice?
S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑ This appeal by special leave has been brought to challenge the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6th January, 1980, which was passed in the background of the following facts :‑‑
2. The appellant joined service as Patwari in the year 1944 and after being promoted, as Kanungo in 1958‑59 was posted in village Nangal Machhana, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot in 1964‑65. ‑ He was charge‑sheeted on 8th December, 1975 by the Settlement Officer/Collector on as many as, eight charges. The Settlement Tehsildar, Sialkot was appointed as Enquiry Officer who, as per his report dated 2nd June, 1977, found that only charges 4, 5 and 6, were proved against the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice dated 18th August, 1977 calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service. The appellant furnished his reply to the said show‑cause notice. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sialkot, after hearing the appellant and considering the report of the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved and dismissed the appellant from service by his order dated 17th August, 1978.
3. The appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, which was dismissed on 18th August, 1979. He there after filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which was dismissed in limine on 6th January, 1980. The learned Tribunal held that the charge No. 5 was not conclusively proved: the charge No. 6 has been established against the appellant from the record and in view of the finding recorded against charge No. 5, it was not neces sary to consider the charge No. 4.
4. Leave to appeal was granted on 30th November, 1980 on a short ground to examine the question whether a copy of the enquiry report should have been supplied to the appellant or not, because it was contended that in the absence of the same the appellant was prejudiced in preparing his defence and showing cause against the punishment sought to be imposed on him.
5. Mr. A. R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that mere service of show‑cause notice without a certified copy of the, enquiry report was of no legal effect and in any case it had caused material prejudice to the appellant who was seriously handicapped the preparation of his defence against the charges enumerated in the show‑cause notice. He attempted to argue on facts but had to restrict his submissions within the limited scope of the leave granting order. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that this ground was not available to the appellant as the same was factually incorrect. He referred to the proceedings of the case and invited our attention to the order‑sheet dated 27th July, 1977 to show that the Collector had directed for the issuance of a show‑cause notice to the appellant together with the enquiry report. The case thereafter was adjourned for hearing on as many as 15 dates and from the case diary it was nowhere indicated that the appellant had made any grievance that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to him. He had duly furnished a reply to the show‑cause notice, taken adjournment and was heard in the matter.
6. The proceedings of the case has been examined by us which confirm the above statement of the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the clear order of the Collector dated 27th July, 1977, referred to above, it must be presumed that the same was duly complied with and a copy of the enquiry report was made available to the appellant. This assertion is supported by the case diary of the proceedings before the Collector before whom no such objection was taken by the appellant. This being the position of the record, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that he was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report.
7. The appeal, in the circumstances, must fail and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.