JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd. 23/2/2004 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.)

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Supply Inspector on 16/5/1973. In the year 1984, the petitioner was posted as Supply Inspector at Kanpur. By the order dtd. 5/4/1999 passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradesh-respondent no. 2, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The Regional Food Controller, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the order dtd. 5/4/1999. The Regional Food Controller, Jhansi issued a charge-sheet dtd. 21/1/2000 to the petitioner containing two charges. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of the charge sheet and, in case, no reply was submitted by the petitioner within the time limit prescribed then, it will be deemed that petitioner has nothing to say in the matter. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Inquiry Officer on 6/4/2000 mentioning therein that the charge- sheet was received by the petitioner on 3/4/2000 and since matter is 17 years old, he will try to submit his reply within time frame or will request for further time. Thereafter, another letter dtd. 11/4/2000 was submitted by the petitioner to the Inquiry Officer requesting him to furnish documents mentioned in the letter dtd. 11/4/2000, so that, he may give effective reply to the charge-sheet. On 17/4/2000, the petitioner submitted another letter requesting for two weeks' further time to submit reply and has also requested that the documents mentioned in letter dtd. 11/4/2000 be provided to the petitioner. Again on 2/5/2000, the petitioner requested that the documents referred in letter dtd. 11/4/2000 be provided to the petitioner and as the time for submitting the reply is going to expire on 2/5/2000, he may be granted one month more time to submit his reply. By order dtd. 10/5/2000 passed by the Inquiry Officer, fifteen days' time was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation with a rider that, in case, explanation is not submitted by petitioner, then on the basis of documents, Inquiry Report will be submitted. On 24/5/2000, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges levelled against him and also giving his explanation to the charges. Along with his reply, petitioner submitted affidavit of Prem Narayan Gupta dtd. 23/5/2000, affidavit of Kasturi Lal dtd. 23/5/2000 and affidavit of Surenderjit Singh dtd. 23/5/2000 in support of his explanation as the documentary evidences. By letter dtd. 24/6/2000, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 4/7/2000 for personal hearing. On 4/7/2000, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer for personal hearing but the inquiry could not be completed on that day. On 11/7/2000, the petitioner submitted certain documents in support of his case along with an application. By order dtd. 30/10/2000, the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 2 called for a reply from the petitioner regarding Inquiry Officer's Report dtd. 21/8/2000. Along with the order dtd. 30/10/2000, the petitioner was served upon the Inquiry Report which was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 21/8/2000. Copy of the Inquiry Report has been annexed as Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition. On 12/12/2000, the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice dtd. 30/10/2000 issued by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by order dtd. 23/7/2001 awarded following penalties:-

(3.) Following submissions are made by the counsel for the petitioner challenging the order impugned: