MAHESH SINGH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 29.3.1976 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Ganna Samiti. Allegations of misconduct have been leveled against him as a result of which an inquiry was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer was nominated who initiated inquiry against the petitioner. As many as ten charges were framed against him. The charge against the petitioner is that he forged signatures of the Cane Officer, Ghaziabad and also some of the employees working in the Sahkari Sangh and has withdrawn money and misappropriated the same. He was also charged for non-compliance of the order in not furnishing document on the record submitted by the higher authorities. Reply was filed by the petitioner against the charge-sheet denying the allegations. Specific stand taken by the petitioner is that he had not forged any signatures and therefore, the same may be sent for verification by an expert. The Inquiry Officer did not accede to the request of the petitioner and held that the petitioner has forged signatures of the officers and the other employees. Witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer who proved the charges against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report to the appointing authority who issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. In reply to the show-cause notice, petitioner put a specific plea that the forged signatures stated to have been made by the petitioner may be referred to an expert.

(2.) The appointing authority reverted the petitioner to his basic pay-scale and two entries were also recorded against the petitioner in his service book. The petitioner preferred appeal against this order which was also dismissed. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In terms of Section 122 that the petitioner's services are governed by Uttar Pradesh Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975. Chapter 10 of the Regulations deals with the inquiry and punishment for the employees of the society. Regulation 66-68 deals with the procedure to be followed by holding inquiry against the delinquent officer. It provides comprehensive procedure in the matter of holding inquiry. The main feature of the procedure is that charge-sheet has to be supplied alongwith the evidence in support of the charges. The delinquent official will be called upon to submit his explanation in writing for each charge within a specified time. In case the delinquent official denies the charges, he will be allowed to cross-examine such witnesses. After completion of the said process, the inquiry report is to be submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Appointing Authority. After examining the case, if the Appointing Authority finds that the punishment of dismissal, removal reduction in the rank is required to be imposed on the delinquent employee, he may seek his reply against the said proposed punishment. A copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer shall also be supplied to the delinquent official alongwith the show-cause notice. After reply is submitted, the Appointing Authority shall pass appropriate orders in this behalf.