ANIL KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 2.11.2012 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.11.2012 by means of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service while he was working on the post of Executive Engineer as well as corrigendum issued on 12.11.2012.

(3.) The facts in short giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PWD department on 5.12.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer on 26.9.2006 and continued to work as Executive Engineer in PWD department at Jaunpur from 26.9.2006 to 23.11.2008. Vide order dated 21.11.2008, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter he was served with a charge sheet on 3.8.2009. When the documents demanded by the petitioner were not supplied, he submitted interim reply. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 23.3.2010 wherein it was found that no charge was established against the petitioner, but the enquiry officer further advised that a fresh charge sheet may be issued framing the charges in the correct manner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1426 (SB) of 2009, Anil Kumar Garg Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the validity of the suspension orders dated 21.11.2008 and 13.7.2009. Said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2009 with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision in the matter within a period of one month. It was also directed by this Court that in respect of second suspension order dated 13.7.2009, enquiry should be concluded within three months and decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner served certified copy of the order dated 12.10.2009 within the stipulated time but the enquiry was not concluded within a period of of three months. When nothing was done, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No.94 (SB) of 2010 and again challenged the suspension orders dated 21.11.2008 and 13.7.2009. The State Government passed order on 19.2.2010 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges relating to the first suspension order dated 21.11.2008. Enquiry report dated 23.3.2010 was also submitted exonerating the petitioner from all the charges in the matter pertaining to the second suspension order dated 13.7.2009 but with an advise to issue amended charges sheet. Writ petition No.94 (SB) of 2010 was finally decided by this Court on 27.4.2010. Certain clarification was also sought as there was typing error in the order dated 27.4.2010 and this Court passed order dated 7.7.2010 quashing the second suspension order dated 13.7.2009 and directed that the opposite party shall issue a charge sheet within a period of four weeks and complete the enquiry within three months thereafter. The petitioner informed the State Government about the order dated 27.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.94 (SB) of 2010. The petitioner served certified copy of the aforesaid orders dated 27.4.2010 and 7.7.2010 immediately after the orders were passed. The State Government passed order on 7.6.2010 that decision has been taken for amending the charge sheet and the petitioner was served with the amended charge sheet dated 8.6.2010 on 21.6.2010. The petitioner raised objection to the issuance of the amended charge sheet by means of letter dated 25.6.2010. The State Government passed order on 17.8.2010 stating that the enquiry shall continue against the petitioner as the earlier enquiry report was erroneous. The petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.2006 of 2010 in which notices were issued and then the State Government passed order reinstating the petitioner by cancelling the second suspension order dated 13.7.2010. The petitioner thereafter moved a representation demanding 26 documents after receiving the amended charge sheet dated 8.6.2010 on 21.6.2010. The enquiry officer fixed first date of enquiry in pursuance to the amended charge sheet as 7.8.2010. As the photostat documents attached with the amended charge sheet were denied to the petitioner and they were also alleged to be fabricated documents, the petitioner made a request for summoning the original documents and for verification of the photostat copies of the documents attached with the charge sheet. In the enquiry proceedings dated 7.8.2010, as the objection made by the petitioner was not very clear that the relied upon documents were fictitious, fabricated and manipulated, the petitioner moved a fresh representation on 11.8.2010 bringing his objection on record. The presenting officer filed a reply on 26.8.2010 before the enquiry officer dealing with the representation of the petitioner dated 5.7.2010 and 11.8.2010. In response to the reply of the presenting officer dated 26.8.2010, the petitioner made a representation stating the relevancy of the documents demanded by him. The enquiry officer wrote a letter dated 31.12.2010 to 18 defence witnesses. The enquiry officer on the 5th date of enquiry i.e. 4.1.2011, accepted statements of 14 persons including the presenting officer Sri S.K. Goel, but the same were not recorded and neither any examination in chief was made nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. On the next date of enquiry i.e. 6.1.2011, the presenting officer Sri S.K. Goel was examined. The petitioner raised objection that Junior Engineer, who had allegedly received 33 Tankers was the material witness to accept or deny the charges. Similarly, the transport agency or the transporter was also a material witness to indicate as if the said 33 Tankers were ever transported from the refinery but the same was not received. The enquiry officer summoned Sri R.K. Prasad, Deputy Manager, Consumer Cell, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., who appeared before the enquiry officer on 11.1.2011 and he clearly stated that the Indian Oil Corporation has not made any verification regarding signatures of the Junior Engineer who allegedly received supply. The next date of enquiry was fixed as 14.1.2011, on which date no enquiry was made but the enquiry officer and the presenting officer wrote proceedings discussing the evidence relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit his defence in writing by means of letter dated 17.1.2011. The enquiry officer and the presenting officer concluded the proceedings and discussed the extraneous charges not shown in the charge sheet. The enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 25.1.2011, which was served on the petitioner vide letter dated 28.2.2011. The petitioner was required to submit his representation within fifteen days. As the enclosures attached with the enquiry report were not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, he made a representation on 23.3.2011 for supplying the same. The petitioner was thereafter supplied the enclosures of the enquiry report on the instructions of the State Government on 25.4.2011. On 2.5.2011, the petitioner submitted representation to the enquiry report supplied through show cause notice. Thereafter, information was sought by the State Government from the U.P. Public Service Commission. The information of the U.P. Public Service Commission was received by the State Government and thereafter dismissal order dated 2.11.2012 has been passed.