OM SHANKER SRIVASTAVA S O CHATURBHUJ LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9/10th November 2000 passed by the District Magistrate Juunpur dismissing the petitioner from service. The main grounds upon which the said order has been challenged by the petitioner is that the said order was not proceeded by any proper enquiry proceedings and immediately after submission of the reply to the charge sheet, the enquiry officer without conducting any proper enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice has submitted his enquiry reports finding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him. Reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice issued thereafter was also not considered by the respondent No. 1 who has passed the impugned order.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Ahalmad in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Jaunpur. On 19.5.1997 a first information report was lodged against the petitioner by one Mohan Lal Prajapati which was registered as case crime No. 75 of l999 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on the basis of a power of a power of attorney executed by Tilakdhari Prajapati father of the first informant in favour of Ram Devar Yadav, the petitioner along with Accounts Clerk namely Hari Shanker Yadav disbursed the amount to which the first informant was entitled in favour of said Ram Devar Yadav. The amount being the compensation awarded for the land acquired of Tilakdhari Prajapati. It is stated that on the basis of allegations made in the said first information report, a charge sheet dated 27.3.2000 was issued to the petitioner. The said charge sheet has referred to a preliminary enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.2000 and asked for permission to examine the witnesses whose statements were being sought to be relied upon and also asked to be permitted to lead his evidence and for personal hearing. It is alleged by the petitioner that enquiry officer has neither fixed any date nor summoned the petitioner at any date for the enquiry. All of a sudden, the enquiry officer without conducting any enquiry submitted his report dated 3/5/6.2000. Upon the said report, the respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice dated 16.6.2000 to which the petitioner replied on 30/31.8.2000. The respondent No. 1 without considering the reply of the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order of dismissal.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the averments made by the petitioner to the effect that he was not given any opportunity of hearing has been denied in as much as it has been stated that since the enquiry officer has given reasons for recording his findings, therefore, the principles of natural justice has been complied with. It has further been stated that the documents were made available to the petitioner. On the merits of the charges the case as brought out by the respondents is to the effect that the execution case no, 5 of 1996 pending before the court of the Additional District Judge Jaunpur was in respect to some other persons but the compensation deposited in Execution case No. 6 of 1996 was disbursed to Ram Devar Yadav on the basis of power of attorney executed in his favour by Tilakdhari Prajapati. It is alleged that said Ram Devar Yadav had changed the number from execution case from 5 of 1996 to 6 of 1996 in the phostat copy of the power of attorney. On the basis of the said forgery Ram Devar Yadav submitted an application for withdrawing the compensation. It is alleged that it was permitted to be withdrawn by the office of the Land Acquisition Officer by the petitioner and Hari Shanker Yadav Accounts Clerk. The case of the respondent is that Tilakdhari Prajapati has not executed any power of attorney for execution case No. 6 of 1996. It is stated that the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer were duly accepted by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief what so ever.