STATE OF UP Vs. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order dated 16th January, 1998 respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service. His Appeal against the order of dismissal stood dismissed by an order dated 18th July, 1998. He filed a Revision, the same also stood dismissed on 17th November, 1998. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said respondent. That was concluded by the order dated 16th January, 1998. The charges in the disciplinary proceeding were framed by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer fixed 10th October, 1997 as the first date of inquiry. On that date, despite respondent No. 2 being present, for the reason that prosecution witnesses were not present, the inquiry was adjourned to 17th October, 1997. On that date, respondent No. 2 appeared, but again no prosecution witness appeared. The case was, thus, adjourned till 21st October, 1997. On 21st October, 1997, respondent No. 2 did not appear in the inquiry. At the same time, no prosecution witness too turned up. The inquiry was, accordingly, adjourned till 12th November, 1997. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 having been transferred out, a notice was sent to him through special messenger for the purpose of communicating to him that the next date of hearing of the inquiry has been fixed on 12th November, 1997. The special messenger could not serve this notice upon respondent No. 2. The inquiry was then adjourned till 29th November, 1997 and, in order to inform respondent No. 2 that the inquiry has been adjourned till 29th November, 1997, once again a special messenger was sent to notify respondent No. 2. Again, the special messenger failed to notify respondent No. 2. On 29th November, 1997, the inquiry was concluded and, accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, a second show-cause was issued and, thereupon, the order of punishment terminating the services of respondent No. 2 had been passed on 16th January, 1998.

(2.) From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the order of punishment, impugned, was in violation of the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the petitioners failed to give reasonable opportunity to respondent No. 2 to defend the charges levelled against him. The petitioners acted, while conducting the inquiry, behind the back of respondent No. 2, which is not permissible. By reason of that illegal order of termination, respondent No. 2 was prevented from rendering further service. The moment the said illegal order stood quashed, in law, respondent No. 2 got back his status as was prevalent immediately before the said illegal order of punishment was passed. In such circumstances, reinstatement is not only a matter of course, but should be deemed. Mere expression thereof while quashing that illegal termination order, the appellate order and the revisional order, impugned in the present writ petition, in the backdrop of what we have discussed above, we think is not interfereable.

(3.) The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.