KALPANA JHA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed full time woman member of the District Consumer Protection Forum, Kanpur Nagar on 27.3.1997. It appears that in the matter of U. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh, listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.1.2001, the petitioner brought certain facts to the notice of the Apex Court through a letter Annexure-1 addressed to the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India. New Delhi, therein pointing out the laxity on the part of the State Government in the matter of appointment of Chairman, District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar. This was taken by the Government as an act of indiscipline and by means of letter dated 28.2.2001, she was called upon to submit her comments in respect of eight points mentioned therein. A copy of the letter dated 28.2.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charge-sheet. A copy of the reply dated 15.3.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Sri Tikam Singh Pawar, the Under Secretary, who held the enquiry submitted an enquiry report which was never served on the petitioner. However, by means of letter dated 14.5.2001 being Annexure-6, the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation within a week failing which it would be deemed that she had nothing to say and accordingly, appropriate decision would be taken on merits in accordance with law. Along with the said letter, a summary of Government's own conclusions drawn from the report of the enquiry officer was also furnished to the petitioner. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 21.5.2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7 and also demanded a copy of the enquiry report vide Fax dated 24.5.2001 so that she could file proper reply. But the report was not furnished to the petitioner. The State Government passed the impugned order dated 29.6.2001 thereby cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as member of the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar, on the finding that she was guilty of misbehaviour comprehended by Clauses (e) and (f) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1999.

(2.) We have heard the petitioner who appears in person and perused the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Sri Tikam Singh Pawar, Undersecretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U.P. Petitioner was appointed as a Woman Member through the Notification No. C.P. 536/29.8.97 dated 14th March, 1997. It appears that certain complaints against petitioner were received by the Government. The substance of the complaints was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.2.2001 (Annexure-4) whereby she was called upon to submit her report/comments to the enquiry officer. The letter dated 28.2.2001 reads as under: ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) In reply to the letter dated 28.2.2001, the petitioner denied the charges but without holding any enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the enquiry officer submitted his report. A summary of the conclusions drawn by the Government was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.5.2001 (Annexure-6). The Special Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U.P., in his office memo dated 14.5.2001 addressed to the petitioner came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of misconduct referred to in Sub-clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, in short the 'Rules' as it stands amended by Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection (Fifth Amendment) Rules. 1999. Petitioner submitted her reply to the said office memo. She has been removed by impugned order dated 29.6.2001 on the premises that she was guilty of misconduct referred to in Clauses (e) and (f) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Rules aforestated.