VISHNU SWAROOP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has got a long and chequered history, where delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has led to much suffering for him. But, as the course of proceedings would show, the petitioner himself is responsible in substantial measure for the delay that came about in consequence of an interim order passed by this Court, when he challenged his provisional reinstatement in service, revoking his suspension. At the centre stage of challenge in this writ petition is the order dtd. 22/6/2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, awarding the petitioner the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and awarding him an adverse entry, deciding the pending disciplinary proceedings by the said order. The other order impugned is the one dtd. 7/6/2012, fixing for the petitioner his salary by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The last under challenge is the order dtd. 25/4/2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed a Clerk in the office of the District Supply Officer, Kanpur. He was transferred from Kanpur Head Office to Akbarpur, situate in Kanpur Dehat in the year 1981. He was again transferred from Akbarpur to Kanpur in the year 1982 by an order of 9/12/1992 passed by the District Supply Officer. The petitioner was transferred from Kanpur Nagar to Farrukhabad. He was placed under suspension pending inquiry and vide order dtd. 16/12/1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner after a lapse of a year and a half on 19/6/1985. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet aforesaid on 22/6/1987.

(3.) Some five years later, the suspension order dtd. 16/12/1983 was revoked by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide order dtd. 27/5/1990 and the petitioner reinstated on a provisional basis. The District Magistrate, Farrukhabad by a memo dtd. 14/5/1991 issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why his services may not be terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause on 24/6/1991. It is averred that after suspension from service on 16/12/1985, followed by the order dtd. 22/5/1985, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner lingered on, which adversely affected the petitioner's right to be considered for promotion. It is also averred that no inquiry was undertaken, though the petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet way back on 22/6/1987, as already said.