SHIV SHANKAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13 -5 -2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure -1 of the writ petition) whereby his services were dispensed with by disciplinary measure while he was working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer. It appears that while working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer on account of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner he was placed under suspension on 7 -8 -2004 pending disciplinary inquiry against him. In pursuance thereof a charge -sheet dated 6/7 -8 -2004 containing as many as six charges was served upon him. In the aforesaid charge -sheet in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner various documents were mentioned to be relied upon in disciplinary inquiry to be held against the petitioner. On receipt of the charge -sheet the petitioner moved an application on 10 -9 -2004 (Annexure -12 of the writ petition) praying for the copy of certain documents to reply the charge -sheet but the aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected by the Inquiry Officer on 16 -9 -2004 (Annexure -3 of the writ petition) on the ground that the documents sought to be relied upon against the petitioner in disciplinary inquiry has already been supplied to him alongwith the charge -sheet dated 6/7 -8 -2004, which had already been served upon him on 28 -8 -2004. However, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge -sheet on 25 -9 -2004 (Annexure -14 of the writ petition). Since then it is alleged in para 30 of the writ petition that till 23 -12 -2004 the petitioner did not hear anything about the progress of disciplinary inquiry to be held against him. However, to his utter surprise he was served with a letter dated 23 -12 -2004 purported to be a show -cause notice issued and served upon the petitioner alongwith the inquiry report dated 9 -11 -2004 (Annexure -15 of the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his reply on 10 -1 -2005 (Annexure -17 of the writ petition) but without considering the aforesaid reply of show -cause notice in correct perspective the impugned order dated 13 -5 -2005 has been passed removing the petitioner from services hence this petition.

(2.) IN justification of the impugned action taken against the petitioner the respondents have filed a detailed counter -affidavit, the reference of which shall be given hereinafter. After exchange of counter -affidavit and Rejoinder affidavit the case was heard for final disposal on merits with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Singh for the petitioner and Sri Sheo Nath Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) CONTRARY to it, in justification of impugned action taken against the petitioner the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel Sri Sheo Nath Singh while placing reliance upon the various averments made in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of respondents has contended that in given facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner the Inquiry Officer himself examined the relevant record and found the petitioner guilty of charges levelled in the charge -sheet indicated herein before and in such circumstances, since no witnesses were required to be examined by the Inquiry Officer in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, therefore, there appears no illegality if the petitioner was not asked to cross -examine any witness if none were examined in support of any charge and after holding such inquiry against the petitioner, in Inquiry Officer has submitted inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. Thereupon a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking his reply thereon. In pursuance of which the petitioner has submitted his reply and after considering the same and findings of Inquiry Officer the disciplinary authority has agreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer and passed the order removing the petitioner from service. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner cannot be found faulty on any score.