GOVIND LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as a Block Development Officer, was suspended vide order dated 30.3.1992, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. However, the order of suspension was revoked after the issuance of the charge-sheet vide order dated 6.11.1992. A charge-sheet containing several charges was issued and served upon the petitioner on 19.9.1992. Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 26.9.1992.

(2.) It appears that Deputy Development Commissioner, Varanasi was appointed as Enquiry Officer and since after the retirement of the permanent incumbent Sri F.R. Khan from the post Deputy Development Commissioner, Varanasi on 30.6.1992, no regular officer was appointed, therefore, the enquiry was proceeded with by the officer who was holding the charge of Deputy Development Commissioner on additional basis, in addition to his own regular charge. The State Government on coming to know that there "was no officer regularly appointed as Deputy Development Commissioner, Varanasi after the retirement of Sri F.R. Khan, realised its mistake and, therefore, appointed Sri B.S. Bhullar as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 20.2.1993, namely, the Chief Development Officer, Varanasi for conducting the enquiry.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that Sri B.S. Bhullar did not afford any opportunity of participation in enquiry and his prayer for change of the Enquiry Officer (Sri B.S. Bhullar), being based against the petitioner, was not considered. Apart from the aforesaid two grounds of bias and want of opportunity of participation in enquiry proceedings before Sri B.S. Bhullar, the Enquiry Officer, learned Counsel has also submitted that from the record particularly the counter affidavit filed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, it is evident that the Government, on the basis of the enquiry (which enquiry is being challenged by the petitioner), had recommended for award of punishment of censure and of making recovery of certain amount as his integrity was found doubtful but the Public Service Commission did not agree with the proposed punishment and, therefore, asked the Government to pass an order of dismissal from service looking to the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner. As a consequence of the desire expressed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, the order of dismissal has been passed but no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the major punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon him.