MAHFUZ-UR-RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 19/20 -9 -2000, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner and allow him to work on the post of Peon and pay salary including arrears to him.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 17.11.1984 as Peon by the respondent no.3 and in pursuance thereof, he joined his duties on 19.11.1984. The petitioner since then has been continuously working to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and in consideration of his services, he was confirmed with effect from 19.11.1985. Ever since his joining the service, no complaint whatsoever was made against the petitioner and his working was always appreciated by all. On 26.01.2000, one Kunwar Pal Singh made a complaint against the petitioner that when the flag hoisting was taking place in the premises, the petitioner created hindrance by making noise. Acting on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension and charge -sheet was served upon him.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the charge -sheet dated 09.02.2000, it reflects that three charges were levelled against the petitioner; the first charge was to the effect that on 26.01.2000 when the Republic Day celebration was going on, the petitioner used defamatory language by moving here and there and thus created hindrance in the ceremony which was going on, on the occasion of Republic Day; the second and third charges were to the effect that the petitioner disobeyed the orders of the senior officer not to create hindrance during Republic Day function. The petitioner was asked to submit reply of the charges, but the petitioner did not give any reply. The Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 12.08.2000 and found all the three charges proved. The disciplinary authority issued show -cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report requiring him to submit his explanation, but again, the petitioner did not give any reply within time. However, the petitioner submitted a delayed reply. The disciplinary authority by means of the impugned order dated 19/20.09.2000 dismissed the petitioner from service having found that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in service.