MUNNA LAL KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that order of dismissal was passed in utter disregard to principle of natural justice.

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioner's Counsel petitioner was appointed as routine grade clerk in the year 1974 in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax Lucknow. He was promoted on the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1986 and lastly he was promoted on the post of Senior Assistant in the year 1994. By order dated 6-8-1997 petitioner was transferred from Account Section to Research Section. Another transfer order dated 30-5-1998 was passed transferring the petitioner to Account Section. He was relieved on the same day from the account Section to Research section by order dated 27-5-1998. However, on account of non-compliance of transfer order he was placed under suspension by order dated 11-11- 1998 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. A charge-sheet dated 24-8-1999 (Annexure- 8) was served on the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner had submitted the reply to the charge-sheet dated 8-10-1999 (Annexure-10 ). The enquiry officer had submitted a report. Thereafter, by order dated 29-2-2000 (Annexure-10) petitioner was punished and one increment in salary of one year was stopped permanently. A consequential censor entry was also awarded to the petitioner. Instead of restoring the petitioner in service after awarding punishment in pursuance to enquiry by order dated 29-2-2000 Annexure-10, another order was passed appointing another enquiry officer to hold enquiry for certain other charges. Copy of order dated 29-2-2000 has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner with the allegation that he had committed certain irregularities in payment of amounts and embezzle Government fund. Copy of the charge-sheet dated 7- 4-2000 has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. After receipt of another charge-sheet petitioner had submitted a reply dated 4-7-2000 (Annexure-13 ). Thereafter the enquiry officer had submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges on the basis of evidence on record. A copy of the enquiry report has been filed as Annexure-15 to the petition. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that petitioner had submitted the reply to the charge-sheet dated 4-7-2000 and appeared before enquiry officer on 17-8-2001. The enquiry officer on 6-7-2000 had perused the record and thereafter submitted an enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the allegations contained in the charge- sheet. In consequence thereof the impugned order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority. Copy of the impugned order of dismissal dated 14-12-2001/13-12-2001 passed by the opposite party No. 3 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) SHRI P. C. Agarwal learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the unreported judgments passed in W. P. No. 1879 (SS) of 2005, Santosh Kumar Pandey v. U. P. S. F. E. C. C. Ltd. & Anr. and W. P. No. 6735 (SB) of 1985, Naipal Singh v. U. P. H. and Development Board & Anr. , and reported judgments reported in 2003 (2) LBESR 691 (SC) : 2003 (3) SCC 633, Bupinder Pal Singh v. D. F. of Civil Aviation & Anr. , 2003 (21) LCD 610, Radhey Kant Khare v. U. P. C. S. F. F. Ltd. ; 2001 (1) LBESR 126 (All) : 2000 (18) LCD 1239, Om Pal Singh v. D. D. O. Ghaziabad & Ors; 1998 (6) SCC 651, State of U. P. v. Shatrughan Lal & Anr. and 1998 (2) LBESR 838 (SC) : 1999 (6) SCC 257, K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A. P. & Anr.