BAJRANG PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. U P PARIYOJANA PRABANDHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in 1975 in U. P. State Bridge Corporation, Lucknow (in brief corporation). He was confirmed in 1989. He was elected as Vice-President of the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Setu Nigam Sanyukt Karamchari Sangh. Shakha. Etawah on 2.11.1993. He was posted on 28.12.1933 at Ahnaiya Setu Moonj Rampura, Etawah. On 7.4.1994 he got information that a dacity had taken place in the night of 6.4.1994 on the workers who were working at Kursaua Tamairi Road where construction work of Sirsa River Bridge was going on. He being Vice-President of the Union, rushed to the place of incident. After some time Deputy Project Manager Shri Hemant Kumar Chauhan/respondent No. 2 (in brief Shri Chauhan) also reached there. The petitioner apprised him of the incident and requested to lodge a report with the police. But Shri Chauhan did not agree. On the contrary, he became annoyed and enquired from the petitioner as to why he had reached there. According to the petitioner, Shri Chauhan even misbehaved with the petitioner, therefore, he was compelled to write against him on 8.4.1984 to respondent No. 1 with copy to District Magistrate, Chief Development Officer and the Managing Director of the Corporation. The Chief Development Officer forwarded the letter of the petitioner to the Managing Director on 22.4.1994. On 17.1.1995 the General Manager wrote a letter to the petitioner to furnish evidence in support of his complaint dated 8.4.1994.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended by Shri Chauhan on 11.4.1994. He was attached to the place of his posting. The suspension order further directed the petitioner not to enter any other place of construction in Etawah Unit. On 5.5.1994 Shri Chauhan framed four charges against petitioner. The first charge was that the petitioner without prior permission reached Tamairi site and instigated the workers to stop the work. The second charge was that on 7.4.1994 and 8.4.1994 the petitioner. Shri Anuj Kumar Jha electrician, Shri Khaliq Khan Khalosi and Munna Singh truck driver conspired to get the work stopped and instigated the workers who were willing to work to stop it. The third charge was that the petitioner on a private jeep went around all the places of the unit where work was going on and instigated the workers to stop the work. It was alleged that the petitioner further came to the office of the Deputy Project Manager on 11.4.1994 misled the workers and instigated them to stop the work. The fourth charge was that that due to instigation of petitioner the workers of the entire places came to Etawah but when they came to know that they were misled then they returned. The result was that the work in all the places on 11.4,1994 remained closed. Even the work in the constituency of the Minister was obstructed which affected the image of the corporation and caused loss to it. In the bottom of the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that the violations of various clauses of standing orders against petitioner was proved. But the charge-sheet did not mention any material or evidence on which it was based or which was to be produced against the petitioner.

(3.) On 29.9.1994 the petitioner received a letter from Shri Ramjee Singh. Assistant Engineer that he had been appointed enquiry officer by the Deputy Project Manager and he may appear before him on 10.10.1994. In compliance to this letter the petitioner appeared and his statement was recorded. He was questioned about the charges even though no charge-sheet was served on him. The petitioner wrote a letter on 19/20.10.1994 to the enquiry officer to supply a copy of the charge-sheet as It has not been served on him. He further requested that a copy of his statement recorded on 10.10.1994 and certified copy of other documents may be supplied to him. The enquiry officer supplied a copy of the charge-sheet only. No other document was supplied. Even copy of his statement was not supplied. The enquiry officer did not fix any date thereafter nor did he bring on record any evidence in support of any of the charges framed against the petitioner. And if any material was brought on record the petitioner was not informed of it nor he was confronted. The enquiry officer did not supply copy of any document on which he proposed to rely. In the bottom of the statement of the petitioner there is an endorsement that the petitioner filed three documents. But there is no mention that any document was filed by the corporation. The enquiry officer did not fix any date for holding the enquiry except 10.10.1994 the date on which the statement of petitioner was recorded. He submitted the report, thereafter, without affording any opportunity to petitioner to defend. The copy of the statement and report have been filed as Annexures-CA2 and CA-5 to the counter-affidavit. The respondents have filed two letters as Annexures-CA-3 and CA-4 to the counter-affidavit. One is dated 10.4.1994 by Shri Lalta Prasad that the petitioner was absent on 7.4.1994 without his permission and another report dated 17.5.1994 that the petitioner was not present at his residence on 11, 13 and 17th May, 1994. None of the officers were examined in support of these reports. The papers were not supplied to the petitioner even though he made a request for supplying the documents. The enquiry officer found that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. On the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by order dated 8.4.1995 passed by Shri Chauhan. The order has been filed as Annexure-20 to the writ petition. It is this order dated 8.4.1995 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.