SHARAD KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.P.Srivastava, and Sri G.S.Khare, learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, Sharad Kumar Verma, was selected through the Combined Provincial Services Examination conducted by the U.P.Public Service Commission, Allahabad on the post of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer. He joined his services at Varanasi on 24.4.1990 and since the year 1991 the petitioner was given charge of Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Banda. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties on different posts and was handed over four additional charges during the period 1995 to 1998.

(2.) On 22/8/1998 while the petitioner was working in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Jaunpur as Finance and Accounts Officer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 27/8/1998. He made a representation requesting for supply of certain documents on 12/10/1998 and since the copies were not supplied he made various representations right from 26/10/1998 upto March, 2000.

(3.) The petitioner though submitted reply to the charge sheet on 12/10/1998 in which he explained the charges and denied his liability but expressed his reservation for not being able to give complete reply in the absence of the copies of documents and record being shown. A similar request was again made, vide letter-dated 26/12/1998. It appears that the enquiry officer allowed only one document and, therefore, the petitioner again made a representation on 6/6/2000 bringing the fact of non-supply of documents to the notice of the enquiry officer and also the document, which was given to him and prayed for supply of the rest of the documents. The enquiry officer, however, without supplying the copies and without responding to the request made for supply of documents, compelled the petitioner to submit his reply. However, as per case of the petitioner he was given only one document on 6.6.2000 against which he submitted his representation and the enquiry officer treated the said representation as his reply and proceeded to submit the enquiry report.