MUNNA LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.P.N. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) DESPITE time having been granted to respondents no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel, however, stated that since the relevant record has been filed alongwith the writ petition, he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition may be heard and decided on merits after hearing the parties. Sri A.P.N. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the same. I proceed accordingly to dispose of the matter under the Rules of the Court at this stage.

(3.) HOWEVER , I find no force in the above submissions. It appears that the petitioner was a substantively appointed Lekhpal and was given a purely officiating and temporary promotion on the post of Record Inspector (Bhulekh Nirikshak) vide order dated 23.02.1988 passed by the Record Officer, Etawah. He however was never made substantive on the promoted post of Bhulekh Nirikshak (subsequently designated as Revenue Inspector) though he made request for the same vide his letters dated 15.07.1998 and 31.08.1998 wherein he also says that he has yet to be sent for training for regular promotion to the post of Bhulekh Nirikshak though he is working on the same for the last 10 years. The competent authority, i.e., the Record Officer vide order dated 13.10.1998 reverted the petitioner to his substantive post of Lekhpal pursuant to the District Magistrate's order dated 07.10.1998. It appears thereafter that instead receiving the said order the petitioner absented himself from 14.10.1998 and onwards. It also appears that on account of his continuous absence a charge sheet was issued to him on 13.01.1999 pursuant whereto Tahsildar Auraiyya submitted his inquiry report on 06.08.1999 and after finding the charge of unauthorised absence proved, major penalty of reduction on the lowest of the pay scale of substantive post was passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Auraiyya on 30.10.1999, whereagainst the petitioner filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the appellant authority by order dated 12.11.2009 and he while setting aside punishment order dated 30.10.1999, directed the disciplinary authority to hold a fresh inquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.