MOHAMMAD ASLAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Dr. R.S. Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri V.S. Dwivedi for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6.

(2.) THE Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division -II, Lalitpur vide order dated 27.08.2004 has dismissed the petitioner, Mohammad Aslam working on the post of Tracer in the said department as a result of departmental inquiry and aggrieved thereto the petitioner has come to this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.08.2004 and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Tracer with all consequential benefits

(3.) DR . Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order of dismissal, has contended that before imposing major punishment of dismissal neither any oral inquiry was conducted against the petitioner nor there was any inquiry report showing that both the charges levelled against him are proved, yet the disciplinary authority by sheer misreading the findings of the inquiry officer has proceeded and passed the impugned order of dismissal. It is further contended that at no point of time copy of inquiry report was ever served upon the petitioner and even alongwith show cause notice he was only required to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service, without furnishing a copy of inquiry report. In his reply dated 25.08.2004, he categorically stated that in the absence of furnishing of inquiry report, he was not aware as to what has been held by the inquiry officer but submitted his reply under the impression that the inquiry officer hold both the charges proved, as observed by the Executive Engineer in the show cause notice dated 12.08.2004. He, therefore, submitted that without furnishing copy of inquiry report and without giving opportunity to the petitioner to reply the same, the impugned order has been passed which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner since he could not dispute the perverse finding of the disciplinary authority mentioned in the show cause notice that the charges are proved though in the inquiry report no finding was recorded with respect to charge No. 1 and only charge No. 2 was held proved. He further contended that from the show cause notice and the dismissal order it is evident that the Executive Engineer has not passed order independently by application of his own wisdom and discretion but has proceeded to pass the said order pursuant to the orders issued by the higher authorities i.e. the State Government as well as the Engineer -in -Chief, Irrigation Department and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law.