JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Ms. Kalayani Deshpande, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Badar, learned counsel, for the respondents.
2. This petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated 10-7-1990 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the above referred order is challenged basically on two grounds- firstly that the petitioner's request to be represented by defence representative Shri P.L. Sen, senior oversear of Umrer Colliery was rejected by the Inquiry Officer, though under Standing Orders such permission ought to have been granted to him. It is, therefore, contended that the enquiry conducted stands vitiated since the petitioner could not put forth his defence properly for want of permission to be represented by the co-worker.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is bad in law since the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal and in absence of copy of the inquiry report the petitioner could not represent his case properly against the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law.
4. Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and contended that as per the Standing Orders the delinquent, if he makes a request, can be permitted to be represented in the Departmental Enquiry by his co-worker. That means the co-worker from the same colliery and not from other colliery can represent the delinquent. It is contended that in the instant case the request made by the petitioner in this regard was to permit him to be represented by Shri P.L. Sen who is an employee/worker in Umrer Colliery whereas the petitioner was working in Sillewada Colliery and, therefore, the refusal of the request by the respondents is as per the stipulation in the Standing Orders.
5. Mr. Badar, learned counsel, further contended that since the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is dated 10-7-1990 the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan is not applicable and, therefore, non-supply of copy of the report of Inquiry Officer by itself cannot be termed as a serious prejudice caused to the delinquent and the action of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be held to be bad in law on this count. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. V.B. Hiregowdar 1996 Lab.I.C. 2748.
6. Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the respondent, further contended that in the instant case as per the Standing Orders if the delinquent makes a request for supply of copy of the report of Inquiry Officer, in such case copy is furnished to the delinquent. However, in the instant case, no such request was ever made by the petitioner and, therefore, the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer could not be served on the petitioner which does not vitiate neither the inquiry nor the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the decision in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. V.B. Hiregowdar supra. So far as the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it appears that as per the Standing Orders the delinquent is permitted to be represented by the co-worker of the same colliery/mines. In the instant case the petitioner wanted to be represented by Shri Sen who is an employee of another colliery and therefore the request was rightly turned down by the Inquiry Officer.
8. So far as the second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, relevant observations of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and ors. v. V.B. Hiregowdar supra, read thus :
The rule laid down in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) on 20-11-1990 that non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report to a delinquent employee would render the final order void is only applicable prospectively after the date of the decision in Ramzan Khan's case (supra). Hence no order of punishment passed on a delinquent employee before 20th November, 1990 is challengeable on the basis of the judgment in Ramzan Khan's case (supra) and proceedings in such cases are to be decided on the basis of the law as it existed prior to the decision in Ramzan Khan's case (supra), except in cases where the service rules themselves provide for supply of copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent employee before imposing punishment.
9. In the backdrop of the above referred observations of the Apex Court it is evident that non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the order dated 10-7-1990 cannot vitiate either the inquiry or the order of the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. Similarly, in the instant case, as per the Standing Orders the delinquent is entitled to get a copy of the inquiry report provided he makes a request for the same. In the instant case, no such request was ever made by the petitioner and in absence thereof the order of the Disciplinary Authority cannot be said to be bad in law.
10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition lacks merit and therefore the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.