DEO NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case can be disposed of on a very short ground. The Petitioner was served with a charge sheet containing as many as 33 charges and a supplementary charge sheet containing 7 charges was also served upon him and disciplinary proceedings were held. The Inquiry Officer found that some of the charges were proved and some of the charges were not established and consequently, exonerated the Petitioner in respect of latter set of charges. He also proposed punishment with regard to those charges which were found to be proved. The matter was considered by the Director of Agriculture, who in his capacity as the punishing authority, passed the impugned order dated 17th March, 1982 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition. He found that charges Nos. 2, 19 and 25 were fully proved and charges Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15. 16, 23, 24.26, 27.28, 29, 30 and 32 and charges Nos. 3 and 5 of the supplementary charge sheet were partially proved and the remaining charges were not. proved at all. In coming to this conclusion the punishing authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer and took a different view in regard to some of the charges. As a result of the findings arrived at by him, he directed that the Petitioner be dismissed from service and a sum of Rs. 27195/ - WP may be recovered from him.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that no opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner by the punishing authority before finding him guilty in respect of those charges which were found to be not proved by the Inquiry Officer, nor the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him and, therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. In Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : JT 1990 (4) SC 456 it has been held in para 9 of the report that where the Inquiry Officer furnishes a report with or without proposal of punishment the report of the Inquiry Officer does constitute an additional material which would be taken into account by the disciplinary authority in dealing with the matter. In case where punishment is proposed, there is an assessment of the material and a tentative decision is reached for consideration of the disciplinary authority and that action is one where the prejudicial material against the delinquent is all the more pronounced. It has been further held in para 13 of the report that with the Forty Second Amendment of the Constitution the delinquent officer is not associated with the disciplinary inquiry beyond the recording of evidence and the submissions made on the basis of the material to assist the Inquiry Officer to come to his conclusions. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of fault and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasijudicial matter. If the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusions, rules of natural justice would be affected.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17th March, 1982 contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petitions here by quashed. It will be open to the opposite parties to hold the inquiry a fresh according to law from the stage of the submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner in respect of the same in the light of the above observations. Since the matter has become very old, the inquiry shall be completed and final orders passed within a period of three months provided the Petitioner cooperates. The opposite parties will pass appropriate orders according to law in the matter of reinstatement of the Petitioner and payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension etc. There will be no order as to costs.