ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicant, a Sales Tax Officer, has assailed respondents’ order dated 27.5.2004, whereby on disciplinary proceedings, a major penalty of withholding of three increments, with cumulative effect, has been imposed upon him.
2. Vide memorandum dated 14.6.2001, applicant was alleged of the following misconduct:
While functioning as STO in ward No. 73, Shri Nand Lal Singh was dealing with the case file of M/S. Pratham International. He has committed misconduct in not obeying the instructions issued vide circular No. 7 of 1995-96 regarding issue of statutory forms to the registered dealer. He issued blank statutory forms to the dealer, who in turn passed on one such form to another dealer, who misused the same for the item not allowed on the RC for a different year and amount. Sh. Nand Lal Sigh had submitted two sets of replies, which are contradictory to each other and are not expected from a senior gazetted officer. This proves the connivance of Sh. Nand Lal Singh with the dealer.
Thus Shri Nand Lal Singh knowingly did not follow the instructions of the above noted circular and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duties which is unbecoming of a government servant and his conduct was in violation of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. To prove the aforesaid respondents have relied upon form sheets. During the course of enquiry, neither 8 ST-35 forms nor 13 ST-1 forms, which formed basis of the charge neither were included as documents nor were proved on exhibit. Applicant, who had demanded the aforesaid in his written statement of defence by taking such a plea, the aforesaid plea was not taken into consideration and the Enquiry Officer (EO) has established the charge against applicant only on the basis that the forms which were unfilled and the parties were given the same without doing any business or production. Accordingly, apart from other legal pleas, it is contended by learned Counsel of applicant that as the documents forming basis of the charge were not proved, applicant has not only been denied reasonable opportunity to effectively defend the charge but also the charge has also not been established.
4. To the aforesaid plea, learned Counsel of respondents denied the allegations and stated that these documents are not relied upon. Applicant has not raised any objection to this regard in the enquiry.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Even in the rejoinder letter dated 12.2.2004, reminders dated 18.3.2004 and 6.4.2004 are conclusive to the effect that applicant has demanded these documents during the course of enquiry. We have also perused the defence statement of applicant where a specific plea as to non-supply of the documents has been taken. Non-supply of documents cannot be compensated by inspection of the record, as contended by the learned Counsel of respondents. If a document is relied upon and formed basis of the charge its supply is mandatory in the circumstances and non-furnishing of document would not only prejudice the employee but would also deprive him a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend the charge. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal , clearly ruled that the documents are to be served upon the concerned. Moreover, the Apex Court in South West Bengal Transport Corporation v. Swapan Kumar Mitra , ruled that non-supply of the documents vitiates the enquiry.
7. In the light of the above, leaving other grounds open, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Consequences would follow. However, nothing precludes respondents, if so advised, to resume the proceedings from the stage of supply of documents to applicant and proceed further. In such an event, law shall take its own course. No costs.