HARI OM RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge sheet dtd. 9/11/2006 was served to petitioner, working as a Consolidation Officer, Agra, contains following two charges:

(2.) The petitioner filed applications dtd. 4/12/2006 and 13/2/2007 demanding the documents, contending that his signatures on the order referred in the charge sheet were forged and he had not put his signatures. He also seeks permission to examine the documents. However, neither documents were provided nor any oral evidence was recorded during inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and submitted its report dtd. 9/8/2007 whereby the above referred both charges were found proved against petitioner.

(3.) Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Inquiry Officer has acted as an appellate authority and conducted inquiry as he was sitting in appeal against the orders passed by petitioner. The original records were not brought on record before Inquiry Officer and he erroneously came to conclusion that petitioner while passing certain orders as Consolidation Officer had committed procedure error which led to loss of revenue to Gaon Sabha concerned. Thereafter a copy of inquiry report was submitted to petitioner and a show cause notice dtd. 9/10/2007 was issued. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and again contended that orders were not passed by him and signatures were forged by a gang which was operating at the relevant time. It was also contended that there was no mala fide intention to pass such orders. The orders were passed on the basis of earlier orders and were in nature of execution.