M.M.SONWANI Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order of dismissal dated 14.10.1996 (Annexure P/25) and the order dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.1996, was rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Stenographer in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Durg. He had joined services in April, 1961 as Lower Division Clerk and was promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 1978. For the alleged disorderly behaviour, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.06.1993. An FIR was lodged by the clerk of court in the Durg Police Station on 06.07.1993 against the petitioner and a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 07.07.1993. A departmental enquiry was initiated on 30.08.1993 bythe 1st Additional Judge to the District Judge, Durg. The petitioner made a request to the respondent No. 2 to provide copies of certain documents which was declined by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner also made a request to change the Presiding Officer alleging that the said Enquiry Officer (for short 'the EO') was biased. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class and such report was not communicated to the petitioner even on demand. The petitioner also made an application to the respondent department to keep the enquiry pending as his case was also pending before the Criminal Court, on the same set of charges. After completion of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and was dismissed from service on 03.12.1997 (Annexure P /20). An appeal was also preferred by him which was rejected by the respondent No. 1. Thus, this petition.

(3.) Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet was issued in violation of Rule 14(4) and 14(5a) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966') as the Disciplinary Authority (for short 'the DA') was required to fix a date by which the petitioner should submit his reply to the charge sheet and on receipt of the reply to consider it or if the delinquent employee does not submit his reply, on expiry of the said period, the EO should have been appointed. The petitioner was never asked by the DA to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner asked for supply of the copy of the complaint and the report of the preliminary enquiry, as the complaint was the basis of the departmental enquiry. There was no allegation in the complaint of R.S.Mishra that the petitioner had gone to the District Judge's Court and urinated in the witness box. How this charge was framed is beyond one's understanding. The DA directed A.K.Shrivastava, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class to hold preliminary enquiry which was conducted but on asking by the petitioner for a copy of the same, it was not supplied to him and denied by the EO and the DA. Shri Nair would further submit that the note appended to Rule 14(11) mandates that if the delinquent employee asks for copies of the listed documents orally or in writing the same should be supplied to him. On account of non-supply of the aforestated documents, the enquiry is vitiated. It is next contended that Shri G.C.Bajpai was incompetent to be the EO as he was one of the complainants alongwith R.S.Mishra. G.C.Bajpai came to a prima facie conclusion and recommended the District Judge to take exemplary action against the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that G.C.Bajpai was biased against the petitioner as G.C.Bajpai refused to supply a copy of the listed documents and concealed above material facts from the petitioner. He was not acting in a fair and impartial manner but with a pre-determined state of mind to take exemplary action against the petitioner. Thus, it was requested by the petitioner to change him and entrust the enquiry to some other officer. The petitioner co-operated in the departmental enquiry and participated in the proceedings on all the dates fixed by the EO i.e. 02.09.1993, 08.09.1993, 10.09.1993, 17.09.1993, 20.09.1993, 25.09.1993, 04.10.1993, 06.10.1993 and 09.10.1993. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of dragging or delaying in the enquiry on any count. It was only on one occasion i.e. on 04.11.1993, that the petitioner was absent due to his sickness, yet the EO refused to adjourn the enquiry and in a haste and hurry manner, without giving a single opportunity to the petitioner, concluded the enquiry ex-parte.