VISHWA NATH LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of punishment dated 26.5.2011 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent No. 1 by means of which his gratuity has been withheld and a direction for deducting 20% from his pension has been issued. Brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Director in the department of Niyojan, Arth Evam Sankhya, Lucknow. An advertisement dated 28.7.2006 was issued by the State Government to fill up the vacancies of Peons and for that purpose a selection committee was constituted comprising of four members namely ; (i) Vishwa Nath Lal, petitioner (as Chairman and also a Scheduled Castes representative), (ii) A.K. Pandey, Deputy Director (Economics & Statistics), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, (iii) L.K. Singh (Economics & Statistics Officer in office of Deputy Director (Economics & Statistic), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, and (iv) Akhileshwar Misra, District Khadi & Gramodyog Officer (nominee of District Magistrate, Lucknow). This selection committee was to make selection of Class IV employees namely; peon and sweeper in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.7.2006. The selection was to be made as per Samuh Gha Karmchari Sewa Niyamawali, 1995 as amended by Sewa Niyamawali (Third Amendment) Rules, 1999. The result of the selection was declared on 8.11.2006 and the appointment letters were dispatched on 9.11.2006. Two non-selected candidates being aggrieved by the result of selection, filed Writ Petition No. 9988 (S/S) of 2006 challenging the entire select list dated 9.11.2006 at Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petitioner made certain allegations against the selection which were defended by the State Government by filing a detailed counter affidavit.

(2.) The learned Single Judge however, after looking into the record of the selection passed an order on 18.12.2006 directing the Officer on Special Duty of this Court to scrutinize the entire original record of the selected candidates and submit his report. After scrutinizing the entire record, the Officer on Special Duty submitted his report on 27.1.2007 and this Court vide another order dated 9.2.2007 again directed the Officer on Special Duty to scrutinize the record of non-selected candidates also and submit an enquiry report to which a supplementary report was submitted by the Officer on Special Duty on 15.3.2007. The State Government again contested the matter and though it did not dispute that certain discrepancies in the tabulation chart had occurred but assured that the result of the selected candidates was not effected but for one or two candidates.

(3.) Learned Single Judge on the basis of the report of the Officer on Special Duty set aside the selection vide his order dated 2.7.2007 and on 26.3.2008 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner levelling two charges and subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued on 29.7.2009 levelling one additional charge. The Enquiry Officer has found charge No. 1 not proved but charge No. 2 was found proved and he gave a finding in respect of charge No. 3 (additional charge) to the effect that it cannot be attributed to the Chairman of the Selection Committee i.e. the petitioner as other members of the Selection Committee are also equally responsible for the same.