OM PAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post in June, 1991 by Principal, Regional Institute of Rural Development. Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur. In 1992 the petitioner was transferred and posted at Regional Institute of Rural Development, Dadri. Ghaziabad (now District Gautam Budh Nagar). In 1997 the petitioner was given an adverse entry for going on leave. He filed a representation against it making allegations against respondent No. 5. He also resisted his posting at the residence of respondent No. 4. On 27.11.1997 the respondent No. 4 issued a notice to petitioner and called for his explanation about reports from office that his work was not satisfactory. It was also mentioned that he misbehaved with employees under influence of liquor. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,800 given to him for distribution to trainees at Bhojpur was not handed over to officer. On 3.12.1997 the petitioner gave his explanation and denied every allegation. The respondent was not satisfied with the explanation and he issued a charge-sheet on 27.4.1998. And an enquiry officer was appointed on 1.5.1998. The enquiry officer on 14.5.98 wrote a letter to the petitioner informing him that he has been appointed enquiry officer and if the petitioner wants to say anything, he may inform in writing so that enquiry proceedings be completed. The petitioner on 16.5.98 submitted his reply to the letter dated 14.5.98 mentioning that he has already submitted the reply to the charge-sheet and it may be treated as his reply and he has nothing further to say. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 4.5.1998. The respondents did not give a copy of the enquiry report nor Issued any show cause notice to the petitioner. By order dated 29-5.98 passed by respondent No. 2, petitioner has been dismissed from service. It is this order of dismissal dated 29.5.98 Annexure-16 to the writ petition, which has been challenged by petitioner in the instant writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Shri Vinod Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Srivastava learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no opportunity of hearing was given by the enquiry officer to the petitioner nor any date was fixed by the enquiry officer. Copy of enquiry report was not given to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority did not issue show cause notice to the petitioner after receiving the copy of enquiry report and the impugned dismissal order has been passed by the respondents against the petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, learned standing counsel has produced the records and has supported the impugned order. He urged that principles of natural justice was complied with. He placed reliance on letter of the petitioner dated 16.5.98 wherein the petitioner has written that since he has already submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, nothing more is to be stated by him.