NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal and was posted in district Chandauli. The petitioner was placed Under suspension by an Order dated 12.6.1998 and was subsequently, issued a charge-sheet dated 30.7.1998, which was duly served upon the petitioner's son on 10.10.1998. The charge-sheet relies upon three reports, namely, reports dated 12.6.1998 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Chakia, district Chandauli. The charges were with regard to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner in the performance of the official duties. On receipt of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 15.10.1998 asking the authority to kindly supply the three reports, which had been mentioned in the charge-sheet. Instead of supplying the charge-sheet, an advertisement dated 29.10.1998 was published by the respondents in the local newspaper directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the charge-sheet, failing which an action would be taken against him in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted a short reply dated 30.10.1998, denying the charges and further stated that a detailed reply would be filed upon the receipt of the three reports. By letters dated 24.5.1999 and 8.7.1999, the petitioner again requested the disciplinary authority to supply the relevant reports. It has been alleged by the petitioner that inspite of the receipt of the aforesaid letters, the relevant documents were never supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that since the suspension allowance was not being paid and that he remained Under suspension for more than 14 months, consequently, he filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37370 of 1999 which was disposed of by a judgment dated 1.9.1999 directing the authority to conclude the enquiry by 30.11.1999 and further pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. Based on the Order of this Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chakia, district Chandauli, passed the Order dated 27.11.1999 terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, which was also rejected by an Order dated 9.11.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which was also rejected by an Order dated 15.6.2002. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition praying for the quashing of the aforesaid Orders and further prayed that he should be reinstated with continuity of service and that the salary should also be paid.

(3.) Heard Sri M.B. Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.