ATUL DUBEY Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.5.1998 (Annexure-P/22) passed by the Chairman of erstwhile Bilaspur Development Authority (for short 'BDA'), the predecessor in interest of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, dismissing the petitioner from service as also directing recovery of the defalcated amount.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager 'LDC' on 19.9.1984 by an order passed by the CEO (BDA). In due course, the petitioner was regularly appointed by order dated 4.3.1989 in the cadre of Class-III employee of the BDA. On 1.7.1995, the petitioner was transferred to the recovery cell of BDA. On 4.10.1995, an FIR was lodged by the cashier of BDA to the effect that when he opened the office at 10.30 am, he found that smoke was emanating from Almirah No.11. On opening the Almirah, it was found that some receipt books were burning, which were doused with the help of other employees. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 22.11.1995 by the Chairman of BDA. Prior to issuance of charge sheet, the petitioner was suspended on 19.10.1995. After issuance of charge sheet, one Shri DS Thakur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On the allegation that the enquiry was constituted by an incompetent authority and the same was continued in violation of principles of natural justice, without supplying the documents to the petitioner, he challenged the said enquiry by preferring a civil suit with a prayer for grant of temporary injunction. On 23.12.1995, 6th Civil Judge, Class-2, Bilaspur granted an order of status quo and thereafter the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents/records on 4.1.1996. The BDA moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed and the suit was eventually dismissed on 9.1.1997. In the meanwhile, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 409 and 436 of the IPC on 11.3.1996. By a judgment dated 14.6.2005 in ST No.371/99, the 9th ASJ (FTC) Bilaspur acquitted the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the BDA continued the departmental equiry during pendency of criminal trial; concluded the same without giving proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and without serving copy of the enquiry report and eventually, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 19.5.1998.