RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1. Sri B. N. Misra has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed an order of dismissal passed on 6.11.1993 by the Managing Director of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., Lucknow. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Salesman in the Corporation Godown at Sultanpur. The decision to hold departmental inquiry was taken against the petitioner and he was put under suspension on 26.10.1991 and a charge-sheet was issued against him on the said dale. The charge-sheet dated 26.10.1991, containing six charges was issued against the petitioner. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, this charge-sheet was never served on him. The petitioner was not kept associated with the inquiry, No documents were supplied to the petitioner which were referred and cited in the charge-sheet. The petitioner was also not informed about the date, place and time of the hearing.

(3.) The subject matter in accusation against the petitioner was that he committed irregularities while discharging duties as Salesman, did not hand over the charge of the office and stock. The petitioner had caused pecuniary loss to the Corporation by his acts. In support of most of the charges, the District Manager, Faizabad's report dated 8.8.1991, letters sent by the said authority, District Manager, Varanasi, were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised grievance that these reports, documents on the basis of which the charges were levelled against the petitioner were not supplied to him during the departmental trial. The alleged inquiry proceeded ex-parte and Inquiry Officer's report dated 8.10.1992, was submitted against the petitioner. All the charges were found proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 11.3.1993. On receiving the show cause notice the petitioner reacted and reiterated his demand for providing him copies of the relevant documents, reports etc. to enable him to meet the charges and put forth his version. According to learned Counsel, a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 30.4.1993. It has been categorically submitted by the petitioner that he was required the documents, reports and Manager's letters and other material to enable him to meet the charges effectively. The petitioner was not provided with these documents and with a predetermined mind and pre-judging the issues, the order of dismissal dated 6.11.1993, was passed against the petitioner, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.