Delhi High Court
Chandra Roop vs Airport Authority Of India & Ors. on 3 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 6586/2012 & CM No. 17405/2012 (Stay)
% 3rd October , 2013
CHANDRA ROOP ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anjali Nehra, Advocate.
VERSUS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition impugns the action of respondent no.1-Airport
Authority of India in appointing a new enquiry officer as per the impugned
order dated 28.8.2012. Petitioner contends that once detailed enquiry
proceedings are conducted and the enquiry officer gives his report, and
which was done in this case as an enquiry officer gave a report dated
6.1.2012, exonerating the petitioner from giving false date of birth, then no
new enquiry officer can be appointed without putting the petitioner to notice.
WPC 6586/2012 Page 1 of 4
2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition is that petitioner
was appointed as a Junior Attendant (Elect.) vide letter dated 14.6.2008 and
he joined services w.e.f 23.6.2008. Petitioner completed the probation
period without any complaint and probation period was not extended.
Petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 10/11.8.2008 alleging
discrepancy as to the date of birth and the petitioner giving wrong date of
birth certificate. Detailed enquiry proceedings were held, and enquiry
officer thereafter gave the report dated 6.1.2012 exonerating the petitioner.
Petitioner never came to know about all this and ultimately petitioner
received notice of appearing before another enquiry officer and whereupon
petitioner filed this writ petition stating that he never received copy of the
report of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not hear the
petitioner before passing the order disagreeing with the report of the enquiry
officer and directing conduct of de novo enquiry proceedings.
3. A reading of the counter-affidavit shows that the facts are
admitted with respect to the first enquiry officer submitting report on
6.1.2012 holding that the charges were not proved. Counter-affidavit is
however silent as to how the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report
of the enquiry officer and directed de novo enquiry without following the
WPC 6586/2012 Page 2 of 4
principles of natural justice and without hearing the petitioner. Following of
principles of natural justice is a sine qua non before a disciplinary authority
disagrees with the findings of enquiry officer and remits the matter for a
fresh enquiry. Since in the present case, petitioner was not even supplied
with the copy of the report of the enquiry officer and nor was heard or any
show-cause notice was issued to him by the disciplinary authority proposing
to disagree with the enquiry officer's report, the impugned order dated
28.8.2012 is therefore illegal and is bound to be set aside.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 28.8.2012 appointing respondent no.4 as a new enquiry officer is
set aside. It is directed that the disciplinary authority will now issue a show-
cause notice to the petitioner as per the first enquiry report dated 6.1.2012
and in the show-cause notice reasons will be given as to why the disciplinary
authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer in the
report dated 6.1.2012. The enquiry officer will then give a personal hearing
to the petitioner or his representative and thereafter pass a detailed speaking
order in accordance with law.
WPC 6586/2012 Page 3 of 4
5. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above
observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
OCTOBER 03, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
