RAM REKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who had been serving as Block Development Officer, has questioned the order dated 01.02.2012 as passed by the State Government in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings that his services shall stand terminated and an amount of Rs.26,17,408/- shall be recovered from him towards the alleged loss to the Government. The order so passed against him has been questioned by the petitioner essentially on the grounds that the entire disciplinary proceedings had been in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999('the Rules of 1999' hereafter) as also the basic principles of natural justice.

(2.) The issue involved in the present matter being related to the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, only a brief reference to the background aspects of the matter would suffice. The petitioner, working as Block Development Officer, Nagra/ Rasra, District Ballia, was placed under suspension in contemplation of an inquiry by the order dated 11.10.2007(Annexure No.2). In this order of suspension, seven distinct allegations were made against the petitioner, essentially of the nature that he indulged in misappropriation of the government money by various acts of improper and illegal payments towards different works. By another order dated 11.10.2007(Annexure No.3), the Collector, Basti was appointed as the Inquiry Officer but then, by yet another order dated 05.12.2007, the Collector, Ballia was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a charge sheet by the Collector, Ballia on 15.05.2008; though this charge sheet was dated 11.10.2007. In this charge sheet, as many as fifteen different charges were levelled against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he had already submitted an explanation/ representation dated 15.12.2007 in relation to the seven charges which were mentioned in the suspension order dated 11.10.2007; and that regarding eight new charges in the charge sheet, documents were required, which he demanded under his letter dated 15.05.2008(Annexure No.6) but the same were not supplied to him.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that after service of the charge sheet on 15.05.2008, he was not given any notice regarding any further action taken by the Inquiry Officer in relation to the inquiry proceedings. On the other hand, by an order dated 17.06.2008(Annexure No.7), he was reinstated in service, revoking the order of suspension on the ground that there was delay in receiving the report from the Inquiry Officer. However, later on, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure No.8), enclosing therewith a copy of the inquiry report, said to have been drawn by the Inquiry Officer on 02.06.2008.