JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by an order passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 31.3.1994, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as peon in the year 1960 in the Sales Tax Department, but while being posted in the office of the Commissioner Sales Tax, Lucknow, was placed under suspension vide order dated 31st January, 1985 and the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax (Administration) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with it charge-sheet in which the petitioner was charged that he was directly or indirectly giving cooperation to a Firm namely; M/s. Shanti Enterprises and has violated the Government Servant Conduct Rules 3 and 15.

(3.) A reply was submitted to the charge-sheet denying all the charges by stating that he has no concern or interest in the business of his son who was actually the owner of the said Firm. In the reply the petitioner requested for personal hearing and cross-examination of the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, however, exonerated the petitioner from all charges. The punishing authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after considering the entire material on record he came to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner and passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner has raised various pleas including the plea that the punishment order of dismissal was passed against the evidence on record. But it has been mainly urged before the Court that when the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner from all the charges, the disciplinary authority or appointing authority could not have inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service after disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.