SURESH CHANDRA SOTI Vs. STATE CANE SERVICE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. No one has appeared for opposite party Nos. 1 and 4.

(2.) THE petitioner, Suresh Chandra Soti, who was working as Senior Assistant in Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Muzaffar Nagar, has assailed the order of dismissal dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Bijnor. Later on, petitioner was transferred to Muzaffar Nagar. A formal regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him by the appointing authority after suspending the petitioner on 26.10.1988. A charge-sheet containing nine charges, was issued against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary, Public Enquiry Officer, Sahkari Ganna Simiti, U. P., Lucknow. It was indicated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had not discharged his duties bona fidely and honestly. He had committed misconduct and mislead the superior officers in getting the service of some employees terminated caused pecuniary losses to the Ganna Simiti, Bijnor, by making fabrication/ interpolation in the Government records. He was entrusted with the establishment work relating to the employees but he had failed to discharge his duties properly. His integrity was also not found upto the mark. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 8.3.1989. According to the petitioner, after submission of charge-sheet, no date, place and time of the enquiry was fixed nor any proper enquiry was held against the petitioner and no evidence was recorded. THE documents were also not supplied to the petitioner. THE petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing by the enquiry officer. An enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the punishing authority, i.e., Sachiv Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow, a copy which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. THE enquiry report reveals that the petitioner was exonerated from the charge Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 9. Charge Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 were held to be partly proved. Only the charge No. 5 was found to be proved against the petitioner. Charge No. 5 which was found fully proved against the petitioner, was not grave in nature.

(3.) THE appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e., Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, U. P., Lucknow has passed an order of dismissal from services against the petitioner on 16.5.1990. This order is impugned in this writ petition.