SUBHASH CHANDRA UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Subhash Chandra Upadhaya, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed on the post of constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as “the PAC”) in the State of U.P. His services were also confirmed on the said post. While posted in H Company of 33 Bn. PAC at Tara Chand Hostel of Allahabad University, some incident took place between the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash Arun, Company Commander of the said battalion, respondent No. 4. He was placed under suspension by the respondent No. 4, vide order 6 -7 -1998, which was subsequently revoked on 13 -8 -1998 by the Commandant, 33 Bn. PAC, Jhansi. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant, 33 Bn. PAC and statement of the witnesses were recorded. The disciplinary authority decided to hold a full fledged enquiry. The charge sheet was issued on 28 -10 -1998 and the Assistant Commandant, 33 Bn. PAC, Jhansi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, all the witnesses named in the charge sheet were examined, who were also cross -examined by the petitioner and after taking into consideration the evidence and other material as also the defence taken by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after issuing a show -cause notice enclosing a copy of the enquiry report, called for an explanation/reply of the petitioner. After considering the reply so given by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 5 -9 -1999 passed an order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioner failed, whereupon the petitioner preferred a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, being Claim Petition No. 1413 of 2001. The said claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23 -9 -2003, which order is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment as upheld in appeal and revision as also by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not given the copy of the preliminary enquiry report nor the statement of the persons recorded during the preliminary enquiry, which resulted in denying the petitioner an opportunity to effectively cross -examine the witnesses. In support of his aforesaid pleas, he has relied upon the following decisions: