CHAMAN LAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 22.9.2001 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been afforded full opportunity of hearing. The punishment order reveals that the entire inquiry proceedings have been concluded in utter disregard of Articles 14 and 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the opposite parties have mechanically concluded the entire proceedings without permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and without providing the necessary documents. It is also submitted that while concluding the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer has not fixed the date, time and place of the inquiry and the petitioner was not duly associated with the same as such the entire inquiry proceedings vitiate. The petitioner had applied for certain copies of the documents and for permission to take assistance of some advocate/colleague Government servant but no order was passed providing the documents or permitting the assistance of colleague Government servant. The petitioner submitted the reply in the absence of the relevant documents. It is also submitted that before the initiation of the departmental inquiry, the matter was referred, to the CBCID and CBCID did not find the petitioner guilty for the charges and it was reported that no case under any offence of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out. It is alleged that this report of the CBCID has not been taken into consideration by the appointing authority before passing the impugned order.

(3.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. In neither of the counter-affidavits, it has been clearly stated that after receiving the reply of the petitioner any date, time and place was fixed for conducting the inquiry. So far as the demand of the documents and the permission for cross-examination of the witnesses and the assistance of a colleague Government servant is concerned, it has been stated that no such application was received by the inquiry officer. But this reply by the opposite parties, prima facie appears to be incorrect after perusal of the application of the petitioner as contained in Annexure 9 which shows that this application was received by the inquiry officer on 22.3.2000.