HARI SHANKAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-University.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dtd. 6/6/2019 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dtd. 10/11/2020 passed by the Disciplinary Committee as well as resolution dtd. 10/11/2020. Further, prayer has been made in writ petition for directing respondents to treat the petitioner in service till the date of retirement i.e. 31/10/2019 and pay arrears of salary for the period 6/6/2019 to 31/10/2019 and further all consequential benefits.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed as routine clerk/typist by order dtd. 1/4/1982. Petitioner was granted promotion from time to time and finally petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent by order dtd. 22/12/2015 and thereafter petitioner was promoted on Adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Registrar by order dtd. 6/7/2018. Petitioner received chargesheet dtd. 26/4/2019 alleging negligence in duty in respect of three charges mentioned in the above-mentioned chargesheet. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the chargesheet denying allegations against the petitioner by means of reply dtd. 2/5/2019. After enquiry proceedings, enquiry report was submitted on 17/5/2019 holding the petitioner guilty of negligence/indifferent on the basis of fact that petitioner was responsible for the alleged act.