SAROJ KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1983 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal by which claim petition of the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected by the Tribunal.

(2.) In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Amin in Tehsil Biswan, was suspended by an order dated 22.12.1994 in contemplation of inquiry. According to the petitioner an inquiry was held without letting the petitioner know the date of inquiry. Not only this, the Inquiry Officer did not inform the petitioner the place of enquiry and the date fixed by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter on the basis of the inquiry report show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner since the charges/departmental inquiry was similar to the charges pending in the criminal court of law the petitioner informed that he is helpless to disclose his stand before the final decision of the Court concerned because it may affect the proceedings of the Court of law. However, the authority concerned passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner.

(3.) As stated above the main contention of the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer has failed to inform any date of inquiry and also had not furnished him the relevant document so requested by him. Further no opportunity was given to the petitioner even to inspect the records and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is legally untenable in this regard. Tribunal has further failed to appreciate that out of four charges, three charges pertains to the criminal trial wherein he was finally acquitted. The learned Tribunal has mis-appreciated the pleadings of the petitioner and the judgment is without jurisdiction and without any reason. Conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the petitioner was not interested in submitting his reply is perfectly erroneous. Further it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the petitioner had not filed reply it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to inquire into the matter and then to record his finding instead the Inquiry Officer had not inquired into the matter as is required under law.