RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents. Leaving other details, the facts relevant for the present controversy, are that the petitioner who was working as Project Engineer with the U.P. Co-operative Processing & Cold Storage Federation. faced two enquiries - one of year 2002 and the second of year 2006. In the first enquiry, which was initiated on 9.9.2003, the petitioner was exonerated and he was reinstated in service vide order dated 18.3.2004. The petitioner was again placed under suspension in respect of certain charges regarding construction work of PHC Bilwai, Mahoba on 29.3.2006. Various litigations took place as the petitioner has filed writ petitions and lastly he filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 206 (SB) of 2007 on 21.2.2007 wherein he made a prayer for expediting the enquiry. On this writ petition, on day one, the following order was passed:

(2.) Thereafter, the dismissal order was passed on 25.4.2007, on the basis of enquiry report submitted on 28.11.2006. It is this dismissal order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) The salient features of the case which have been brought before us by the counsel for the petitioner are that (i) the impugned order of dismissal has been passed on the basis of two enquiry reports dated 9.9.2003 and dated 28.11.2006. The Disciplinary Authority could not have taken into consideration the enquiry report dated 9.9.2003 as in that enquiry report the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and the Managing Director had taken the decision dated 18.3.2004 to reinstate the petitioner and permission to reinstate him in service was sought from the Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, which means that the enquiry report was accepted by the Managing Director vide order dated 18.3.2004. (ii) The Disciplinary Authority has taken all the charges as proved against the petitioner in respect of the enquiry report dated 9.9.2003, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before recording a finding of guilt, whereas the petitioner was exonerated "from all the charges by the Enquiry Officer. Similarly, the Disciplinary Authority took charges No. 1, 2(3), 2(8) and 5 to be proved against the petitioner in respect of the enquiry report dated 28.11.2006 without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before recording a finding of guilt whereas the petitioner was exonerated from charge Nos. 1, 2(3), 2(8) and 5 in enquiry report dated 28.11.2006 by the Enquiry Officer. Submission is that in view of aforementioned facts, the impugned order having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice is bad in law. In support of this submission, the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Bihari Misra, 1998 7 SCC 84; Ranjeet Singh v. Union of India and others, 2006 4 SCC 153 and R.K. Shukla v. Appellate Authority, Central Bank of India, Lucknow and others, 2007 5 AllLJ 158 (DB)] and (iii) Enquiry report dated 28.11.2006 is ante-dated for the reason that the Enquiry Officer wrote letter dated 29.11.2006 to the petitioner stating therein that as soon as documents are received from Hamirpur, the same will be made available to the petitioner.