JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioner joined the service of respondent Corporation as conductor on ad hoc basis in the year 1989. He claims that he suffered from psychiatric disorder since 2.8.2001. He remained under treatment of doctors for some time. The petitioner thereafter was not permitted to join duty. In the meantime, the respondent conducted an ex parte departmental enquiry against him. By order dated 17.1.2003, his services were terminated. Against the order of termination, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal which has been dismissed by the respondents by order dated 8.5.2003. The petitioner claims that entire departmental proceedings conducted against him are vitiated for non compliance of rules of natural justice. He also claims that the order of punishment is liable to be quashed as copy of the enquiry report had not been supplied to him before the order of termination was passed on 17.1.2003.
2. The respondents have filed a written statement. It has been clarified that the petitioner had been appointed as a conductor on ad hoc basis initially on 1.6.1981. He was adjusted against the regular vacancy on 30.8.1982. However he lost his lien on the aforesaid post on 17.7.1983 as he continued to remain absent. He was ultimately reinstated in service on the basis of award of the Labour Court but without back-wages. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.6.2001 in a case of embezzlement. He was later reinstated. The petitioner was again served with a charge-sheet containing allegations of misappropriation of funds and for being absent from duty. Vide order dated 17.1.2003, his services were terminated. It is further stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. It was only after the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 8.5.2003.
3. We have perused the order dated 8.5.2003 passed by the appellate authority. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that it is not a speaking order. Numerous submissions made by the petitioner have not been considered by the appellate authority. The respondents have also not placed any document on record to show that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to represent against the enquiry report prior to the passing of the order of punishment.
4. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director. Hyderabad ECIL v. B. Karunakar 1993(5) S.L.R. 532, it was incumbent on the respondents to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner before proceeding to pass the order of termination of his services. Further, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Consequently, we allow the petition, quash the order dated 17.1.2003 (Annexure P-9) and the order dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure 14). The respondents shall be at liberty to continue with the departmental proceedings from the stage of giving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. It is made clear that on the basis of quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim reinstatement in service nor will he be entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the aforesaid period. The respondents shall however proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
