AZIZ ULLAH Vs. DAKSHINANCHAL VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed in 1971 as Kuli on Class-IV post with Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Agra, and thereafter on qualifying examination, the petitioner was promoted on Class-III post as Technical Grade-II (TG-2). The minimum qualification for promotion is that the incumbent apart from qualifying the examination must be a High School. On 6.8.2008, the third respondent, Executive Engineer issued a show-cause notice directing the petitioner to produce his High School certificate accordingly petitioner approached the third respondent alongwith original mark sheet as well as certificates, however, the respondent No. 3 did not examine the original mark sheet and again a notice was issued on 20.10.2008 calling upon the petitioner to submit his mark sheet. Similar notice was issued on 5.9.2009. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 3.10.2009 and due to the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was not given the benefit of "Sixth Pay Commission" hence the petitioner approached the Court by filing Writ Petition No. 75588 of 2010, inter alia, praying that the pending enquiry be concluded and finalized and the Court by order dated 4.1.2011 dismissed the writ petition making the following observations:

(2.) Thereafter the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner on the allegation that the documents submitted by the petitioner, pertaining to high school appears to be forged as the Enquiry Officer enquiring into the matter came to a conclusion that the original certificate does not match with the documents submitted by the petitioner and hence exercising powers under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, the petitioner's services was terminated.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that only a show-cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted his reply and on the basis of the reply, the petitioner has been terminated on an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, thus, the authorities by adopting the procedure for imposition of minor penalty have imposed major penalty, which is not permissible under the 1999 Rules.