KHARPATTU RAM SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure No. 1), issued by the opposite party No. 2 whereby Petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order of dismissal and allow him to continue to work on his post and pay him salary regularly.

(2.) Facts of the case, as per pleadings of the writ petition, are that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Marketing Inspector in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies on 15.5.1972 and since then he is continuously discharging his duties. In the year 1999, while Petitioner was posted as Food Godown Incharge, Sultanpur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Chargesheet was served upon the Petitioner on 22.12.1999 (Annexure No. 2). From perusal of charge sheet, it reveals that four charges pertaining to certain irregularities were made against the Petitioner. The first charge was against the Petitioner that on being attached to the office of the District Food & Marketing Officer, Faizabad on 06.02.1999 the Petitioner neither handed over the charge of Sultanpur Centre nor submitted his joining in the office of the District Food & Marketing Officer, Faizabad. The second and third charges were relating to shortage of wheat, rice and other stock and causing financial loss to the department and doubt was also raised against his integrity. The fourth charge relates for making false entry in the record on 28.01.1999 without distributing the rice to the dealers. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 12.7.2001 (Annexure No. 3). After enquiry proceedings, the Chief Marketing Officer, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, U. P., Lucknow issued a show cause notice dated 14.3.2002 (Annexure No. 4) along with the enquiry report dated 21.2.2002.

(3.) The submission of learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 14.03.2002 along with the enquiry report dated 21.02.2002 is contrary to the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1999, which provides that a show cause notice for imposing major punishment on any delinquent official, can be issued only by the Disciplinary Authority and the power to issue show cause notice for imposition of a major penalty cannot be delegated. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 12.6.2002 (Annexure No. 5) to the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, U. P. Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 2) denying the charges levelled against him. However, the opposite party No. 2 dittoed the findings given in the enquiry report ignoring the pleas and evidence placed by the Petitioner.