BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner, who was an employee in the Collectorate, Etah, have been terminated by means of the order dated 29.5.1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The statutory appeal preferred against the termination order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, by his order dated 26.11.1998 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the claim petition challenging the aforesaid two orders also came to be dismissed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow vide its order and judgment dated 24.7.1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders by means of the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who entered in service on 6.11.1985, was transferred to join as Arms Clerk-II on 1.1.1995. One Shri Hari Singh Rana--a B.S.P. activist, without naming anybody, made a general complaint to the District Magistrate, Etah, alleging irregularities in issuing Arms Licences. In preliminary enquiries conducted by C.O. (City), Aligarh and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar and Patiyali, Etah, none was named as guilty. The C.O. (City), Aligarh, found the licences to be genuine. However, on the basis of the twin reports, a F.I.R. was lodged on 21.10.1997 which was registered as Case Crime No. 517 of 1997 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471, I.P.C. wherein the petitioner was named as a co-accused along with others. In the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (for short 'I.O.') no evidence against the petitioner was found. Accordingly, the I.O. submitted final report in favour of the petitioner and charge-sheet against the other accused. The final report was accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, on 18.8.1998 ; the departmental enquiry was, in the meanwhile, initiated and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.10.1997 and served with charge-sheet dated 12.11.1997. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer (for short 'E.O.') fixed 23.3.1998 for hearing ; the E.O. was not present on that date and no other date could be fixed. The E.O. submitted the inquiry report on 4.4.1998 with the findings that all the charges found proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with the show cause notice to which he submitted his reply though the petitioner was denied inspection of the relevant documents.

(3.) Parties have exchanged affidavits.