MAHESH CHANDRA DIXIT Vs. DIRECTOR MANDI PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.1.1989 passed by Director, Mandi Parishad, removing the petitioner from the post of Senior Agriculture Marketing Inspector.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 14.3.1962 in Subordinate Agriculture Service Grade-II, Agriculture Department, U. P. by Director of Agriculture. Said post was within the purview of U. P. Public Service Commission. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Service Commission. The petitioner was, thereafter, confirmed on the aforesaid post on 14.4.1996. It was on 30.7.1980 that he was sent on deputation to Mandi Parishad as Secretary. Mandi Samiti, where he was promoted to the post of Senior Marketing Inspector in Subordinate Agriculture Service Grade-I vide order dated 15.11.1980 with effect from 11.9.1980 by respondent No. 1. Services of the petitioner were merged in the services of Mandi Samiti on 25.11.1985. It was on 4.2.1986 as regarding the charges of committing gross irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, the petitioner was suspended by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, it appears that preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which nothing material came to light against the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, reinstated on 5.4.1986 ; but he was, thereafter, on 2.12.1987 again suspended and one Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Dy. Director of Mandi Parishad, Meerut was appointed inquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. It has been stated that the petitioner made representation to change the inquiry officer ; but he was not changed and charge-sheet dated 12.1.1988 containing thirteen charges was supplied to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his explanation of the charges levelled against him.

(3.) Petitioner applied for the copies of certain documents, which were required to give effective reply, but the same were not supplied to him. The petitioner filed his explanation on 28.1.1988. Thereafter second charge-sheet is alleged to have been supplied on 20.5.1988, reply of which was also submitted by the petitioner on 31.8.1988. The petitioner. It has been stated, also applied for summoning the witnesses, and to permit him to inspect the certain documents. The inquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted two reports dated 14.9.1988 and 9.12.1988 to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 after going through the reports submitted by the inquiry officer and other material which formed part of the record, removed the petitioner from service by the impugned order dated 14.1.1989. Challenging the validity of the said order, present petition as stated above, has been filed.