QAZI HIFZUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been canvassing the validity of impugned order of termination dated 23.7.2002 (Annexure 1).

(2.) FACTS draped in brevity are that the petitioner who was at the relevant time serving as Clerk in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Ghazipur was charged with defalcation of public money inasmuch as the rent realised by him from the year 1996, onwards was appropriated to his use and was not deposited with the Nagar Palika Parishad and as such he was imputed with misappropriation of public money and occasioning loss to the exchequer of the Nagar Palika Parishad. The precise allegation contained in Charge No. 1 is that M.A.C. 5 i.e., receipt Book ISps. 14/1 -100 was issued to the petitioner on 13.11.1996 which he deposited back with the Nagar Palika Parishad on 30.3.2002. The six charges relate to the interpolation/overwriting in the rent receipts and misappropriation of amount of rent realised by him from the year 1996 up to the year 2002. On 5.3.2002, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A First Information Report was also registered on 5.4.2002, at Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur at Case Crime No. 644210286 of 2002 under Section 409 IPC. The charge -sheet containing charges was framed on 4.5.2002 and the petitioner was called upon to furnish his explanation to the charges within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 3.6.2002 and on 23.7.2002, the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the respective contentions in all its ramifications, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not controverted that copy of Enquiry Report submitted on 22.7.2002 by the enquiry officer was not supplied to the petitioner and from perusal of record, it transpires that upon submission of Enquiry Report on 22.7.2002, the impugned order of dismissal followed on 23.7.2002, i.e.,' one day thereafter. It is well settled that quasi -judicial order in service matters, is subject to appear to higher authorities or subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under its Power of Judicial Review. It is, thus, rendered imperative that the report or the ultimate order must contain reasons for the conclusions arrived at. Where the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer, the reasons must be borne on the report of the enquiry and in case he disagrees he must record his own independent reasons. Rule 5(2) of the U.P. Municipal Board Servants (Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules as applicable to the petitioner, may be excerpted below :