KAMAL KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondent.

(2.) Petitioner, a medical officer, working with the State-respondents was served upon a charge sheet dtd. 19/9/2012, levelling imputation of misconduct on two charges alleging to have caused pecuniary loss to the State. Prior to issue of the charge sheet, petitioner was placed under suspension on 11/6/2012. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'Rules 1999'). The petitioner responded by filing reply on 24/8/2015, denying the charges and further demanded documents which were not supplied to him.

(3.) It appears that the documents were in the custody of Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). The relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner on 2/9/2015, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his reply on 16/9/2015 and further submitted a list of witnesses he proposed to examine, which included 100-150 witnesses as noted in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer declined to examine the officers as in the opinion of the enquiry officer they were not relevant to the charge or for raising defence by the petitioner.