RAM PUJAN SRIVASTVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State.

(2.) Ordinarily in matters of minor punishment the High Court is loathe to interfere and the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, however, the contention of Shri Sharak Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that there is apparent error on the face of the record as while passing the impugned order the Special Secretary to the Government who has passed the order has merely quoted the Charge, the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect thereto and response of the petitioner to the show cause notice and the inquiry report. This has been done from internal Page 1 to internal page 6, up to this stage there is absolutely no discussion of the findings by the Inquiry Officer, the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet, the evidence which may have been collected in the inquiry, independently and objectively by the Disciplinary Authority to arrive at any finding. It is only in Para 3 that the Special Secretary has expressed his opinion. Para 3 reads as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_212_LAWS(ALL)4_2022_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) The submission is that proceedings were initiated for imposing a major punishment by issuance of charge sheet. The petitioner had submitted reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. The Disciplinary Authority obviously did not differ from the report of the Inquiry Officer, therefore, he served a show cause notice upon the petitioner enclosing therewith the inquiry report asking him to respond whereupon the petitioner has submitted his response. Now, at this stage the Disciplinary Authority was required to independently and objectively consider the entire material on record including the charges, facts of the case, reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge, evidence adduced during inquiry and then to record his independent and objective opinion as to whether the charge against the petitioner is proved and why the reply of the petitioner against the charge and his response to inquiry report is not acceptable to the Disciplinary Authority. A finding of guilt in respect of each charge should have been recorded with such discussion. It can not be a mechanical exercise because the Inquiry Officer has found the charge to be proved, especially as, even thereafter, the petitioner has responded to the show cause notice as against the inquiry report.