RAM BHARAT TEWARI Vs. TOWN AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Ram Bharat Tewari has filed this writ petition praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of his dismissal as contained in Annexure-1. Another relief for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties has also been sought for.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner was appointed on the post of a Clerk in Town Area Koiripur, district Sultanpur (hereinafter to be referred to as Town Area) tn the year 1975 and since then, he had been working continuously and discharging his duties. He was placed under suspension pending an enquiry in the year 1991. The petitioner challenged his suspension order by filing a Writ Petition No. 1339 of 1991 and this Court, vide Interim order dated 7.3.1991, directed the opposite parties to pay his full salary. However, the enquiry against him was carried on and a charge-sheet containing seven charges against him was published in the newspaper on 28.5.1991. In response to that publication. the petitioner applied for copies of relevant papers, documents and statement of witnesses, etc. so as to enable him to file his reply. The opposite party No. 1, i.e., the Chairman of the Town Area having ill-will against the petitioner not only did not concede to the petitioner's request but also, in an arbitrary manner, forced him to submit his explanation. Sri Ram Surat Yadav, enquiry officer also issued similar instructions to the petitioner as a result of which the latter submitted his explanation. Under these compelling circumstances, the petitioner submitted his written statement denying all the seven charges levelled against him. Thereafter the enquiry officer proceeded to hold an enquiry and after examining the relevant witnesses and the documents arrived at a conclusion that all the charges were unfounded. He submitted his report to the opposite party No. 1 who, however, did not agree with the findings on account of his prejudicial attitude. Without disclosing any reason of his disagreement, he appointed another enquiry officer, namely, Sri Ram Nayan Singh, opposite party No. 4 to hold a fresh enquiry. Sri Ram Nayan Singh, a member of the Town Area Committee framed another charge-sheet containing 12 charges against the petitioner and proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. Neither the charge-sheet was served upon him nor any Intimation about the dates on which the evidence had been recorded was sent to him. On having learnt about the submission of the ex parte report by the second enquiry officer, the petitioner wrote a letter to Sri Ram Nayan Slngh to afford him an opportunity of being heard. As a matter of fact. Sri Ram Nayan Singh had conducted proceedings of the enquiry on such dates on which the petitioner was on leave, thus denying proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the basis of the second report, the Chairman of the Town Area sent a letter to the District Magistrate. Sultanpur. opposite party No. 2 requesting him to grant approval of the proposal regarding dismissal of the petitioner. The Chairman simultaneously published a News Item on 9.7.1992 thereby issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause within 10 days as to why his services should not be dismissed. The petitioner in response to this notice asked from the Chairman for supply of relevant documents including the copy of the enquiry officer's report but the same were not provided to him. Having left with no alternative, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges against him. However, in the meantime, third enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner received an information contained in the letter dated 30.1.1993 from him that further proceedings In the enquiry will be held on 4.2.1993. The third enquiry officer, namely, Ram Narain Singh, a member of the Town Area Committee recorded statement of some witnesses including the Chairman of the Town Area and concluded his report by arriving at findings to the effect that 10 out of 12 charges framed against the petitioner were not substantiated and of the remaining two, one charge regarding disobedience of the orders of the superior was held to be partially established. However, the 12th charge regarding misappropriation of Rs. 3.000, the amount of National Saving Certificate (N.S.C.) was found to be established. On the basis of this report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 20.4.1993 requiring him to show cause within fifteen days as to why the recommendation of the Chairman of the Town Area for dismissal of the petitioner should not be approved and eventually, the petitioner was dismissed by means of the Impugned order dated 14.6.1993 published in the Newspaper on 18.6.1993. As a matter of fact, the dismissal order is a non-speaking order and the punishment awarded was harsh and violatlve of principles of natural justice. It was not commensurate with the gravity of the alleged misconduct and. therefore, it could be termed to be as too severe and discriminatory.

(3.) The Chairman of the Town Area, Sri Kailash Chandra Baranwal filed his counter-affidavit asserting therein that neither the petitioner's work and conduct could be termed to be satisfactory nor was he sincere to his duty. He committed several acts of misconduct and on the basis of his misdeeds, he was charge-sheeted. Further, he asserted his right to disagree with the enquiry report of the first enquiry officer and as suggested by the District Magistrate, he appointed Sri Ram Nayan Stngh as the second enquiry officer. Later on. Sri Ram Narain Singh was asked to conduct the enquiry and he submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty on two counts--the first being that of embezzlement of Rs. 3.000 and the other pertaining to defiance of orders Issued by the superior authority. Adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and lead his defence version and it was thereafter that Sri Ram Narain Slngh submitted his enquiry report. A fresh proposal in pursuance of the third enquiry report was submitted to the District Magistrate along with a proposal to dismiss the petitioner from service and the District Magistrate had duly approved of the said proposal. It was thus after following the entire prescribed procedure that the petitioner was dismissed from service.