LALLAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was substantively appointed as Collection Amin on 4.3.1977 and his services were confirmed w.e.f. 4.3.1979 vide order dated 4.6.1990. While in service, a report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar against the petitioner that his recovery during the relevant period was deficient and was much below the target allotted to him and that he had used indecent language in a review meeting held by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia. The report also indicated that the petitioner was not touring in his area of recovery nor he furnished tour program, which amounted to an act of misconduct on part of the petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar accordingly submitted this report to the Tehsildar who recommended for his suspension on 14.6.2010. On the basis of such recommendation, an order of suspension was passed against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia on 17.6.2010. Ultimately a charge-sheet came to be served upon the petitioner on 30.7.2010 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia containing 8 charges. A Perusal of the charge-sheet would go to show that basis of the charge and proposed disciplinary action is the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 12.6.2010 and the endorsement of Tehsildar dated 14.6.2010. The first charge against petitioner was that his recovery between 23.11.2009 to 31.5.2010 was below the target allotted to him. The second charge was regarding non availability of petitioner in his area over which the concerned revenue authorities expressed their displeasure. The third charge was that the petitioner did not vacate the house and was using it for commercial purposes. The fourth charge related to non submission of explanation despite a direction issued in that regard. The fifth charge is with regard to use of indecent language by the petitioner in a review meeting. The seventh charge is similar as per which petitioner refused to put a note and thereby committed misconduct. The last charge was regarding petitioner's misbehaviour with defaulters and exercise of influence for not being compelled to furnish his tour program. Charge Nos. 8,7,2 and 1 are based entirely upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 12.6.2010 as also the recommendation of Tehsildar, Ballia dated 14.6.2010.

(2.) A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner stating that the disciplinary proceedings are a counter blast only because he had filed Writ Petition No. 51459 of 2010, before this Court. Many other grounds were taken in defence by the petitioner. All the charges were nevertheless emphatically denied.

(3.) It appears that initially one Sri Munauver Ali, Tehsildar acted as the inquiry officer. During the pendency of the proceedings, however, the official who made the endorsement against the petitioner on 14.6.2010 and had also recommended petitioner's suspension became Tehsildar and proceeded to act as the inquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner claims to have submitted an objection against it and requested for change of inquiry officer on the ground that being the complainant himself Ashutosh Dubey could not act as the inquiry officer also. However, no orders appear to have been passed in the matter and the inquiry officer proceeded to submit his report on 28.3.2011. It is urged that neither any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was given nor the petitioner's reply was considered in its correct perspective.