CHANDRA KUMAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was posted as a Lekhpal in Kshetra - Nakela, Tehsil - Biswan, District - Sitapur was suspended on 26. 11. 1991. A charge sheet issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan District - Sitapur was served upon him on 31. 12. 1991. Upon receiving the charge sheet on 2. 1. 1992, the petitioner prayed for time for submitting his reply on 16. 1. 1992. When in the meantime on 10. 2. 1992, the enquiry office who was appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer, namely, the Naib Tehsildar Biswan, Sri Virendra Bahadur had lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner, he submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Biswan with a request that the enquiry officer, namely, Sri Virendra Bahadur be changed. This application was filed by the petitioner on 17. 2. 1992. However, on 18. 2. 1992 Sri Virendra Bahadur, who was sought to be changed, in pursuance of the earlier application filed by the petitioner for the extension of time, extended the time to file the reply to the charge sheet up to 25. 2. 1992. However, this letter never reached the petitioner and, therefore, while the petitioner was still waiting for the extension of time to submit his reply and also for the change of the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and on 24. 3. 1992 submitted his report. Based on the enquiry report, the punishing authority, that is, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan, in his turn passed an order of dismissal on 23. 5. 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court by means of a writ petition being Service Bench No. 239 of 1992 which was disposed of by an order dated 14. 12. 2017 with a direction that the Appellate Authority was to decide the appeal within a period of one month from the passing of the order of the High Court. When the Appellate Court on 31. 3. 2018 dismissed the appeal, the instant writ petition was filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 23. 5. 1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Biswan and the Appellate order dated 31. 3. 2018 essentially on the following grounds:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the charges indicated as to which particular Rule or Law, the petitioner had violated by participating in the political activity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner had never participated in any political activity yet it was not clear from the charges that which Rule was violated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of the charges no. 3 and 4 also did not indicate as to where was the shortcoming in his performance so far as the various schemes were concerned. He submits that the charges did not make it clear as to which land was not allotted by the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the fact that the charges were not clear.