JUDGMENT
S.K. Kar, J.
1. The petitioner Shri Jiten Hazarika a Grade III employee of C.K.B, College, Teok, was removed from service by order dated 24.8.2000 of the Principal Incharqe and Secretary of the College vide his Memo No CKBC/ESST/Dismissal/2000/2.
2. It is alleged that on 22.3.2000 he was served with a notice to show cause against certain allegations and he showed cause by his reply dated 28.3.2000 denying all charges as concocted and fabricated. That on 22.5.2000 petitioner was served with notice of inquiry (domestic) asking him to appear before ‘joint Enquiry Committee’ on 24.5.2000 adding fresh charges other than those already mentioned in earlier notice dated 22.3.2000 and arrying another three persons as delinquents. That the petitioner registered his objection to such ‘impermissible’ inquiry vide letter dated 23.5.2000, opining it violative of the principles of relevant guidelines. That during the proceeding taken on 24.5.2000 Principal in-charge was sitting along with the two staff-Lecturers to hold the inquiry (according to him ‘so called’ and illegal) and the petitioner was forced to make a statement without giving him any chance to cross-examine witnesses produced, for the management. Petitioner was not furnished, with any report of enquiry in spite of his repeated asking thereby causing pre-judice to him. Thereafter the petitioner was asked by another show-cause letter dated 12.8,2000 to show-cause within 7 days why he should not be dismissed from service. Petitioner again denied all charges by his reply dated 24.8.2000 and again asked for copy of enquiry report. Thereafter, he received the order of termination of service on and from 24.8.2000. He prayed for setting aside of such order of termination holding the same is illegal, arbitrary, and erroneous based on confused charges.
3. In the affidavit-in-Opposition without taking the allegations specifically the respondents made, a general denial, repeated the confused charges that were brought against the petitioner but failed to justify the action taken. No document of any type was produced showing serving of documents and taking of evidences, and allowing cross-examination to the petitioner as per law. There was a reply by petitioner to the affidavit-in-Opposition so filed.
4. The parties were heard and materials before Court were considered.
5. I find that it has been rightly submitted that there was no formal and adequate inquiry and there is no record of recording any evidence. At least no record was either referred to or submitted for perusal of this Court in rebuttal to the contentions of the petitioner. There is no statement in the counter to say that inquiry report was furnished before passing the order of termination. Thus, the law given by the ECIL Case (AIR 1994 SC 1074 : Managing Director, ECIL v. S. B. Karunakar, Paras-7) will apply. This Court held on several occasions that if enquiry was done by person(s) other than the Disciplinary Authority then the delinquent is legally entitled to a copy of such inquiry report to make his representation against any proposed penalty or in other words enquiry report is required to be published 2002 (3) GLT 243 is one of such decision of this Court cited before me.
6. The dismissal, therefore, is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. But then, the Disciplinary Authority will be permitted to take fresh action by instituting a de-nove inquiry on any or more of these charges but bearing in mind the legal mandate that charge should always be specific, distinct and devoid of confusion. The disciplinary authority will have the liberty to decide any claim of service benefits on appropriate representation by the petitioner relating to the period from the date of dismissal till the re-instatement. The process to be completed within three months if initiated.
7. Petition is partly allowed setting aside the order to termination and referring back the matter to the respondents on the guidelines recorded. The petitioner will be re-instated forthwith.