SURESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner was appointed on 2.11.1970 as Court Moharrir in the Urban Ceiling Department. He was later promoted as Reader. The petitioner remained on casual leave for three days from 15.3.1990 to 17.3.1990. Thereafter 18.3.1990 was Sunday and he moved a fresh application for casual leave for further three days from 19.3.1990 to 21.3.1990. He thus remained on casual leave for six days and thereafter joined duties on 22.3.1990. During this period there was rearrangement regarding allocation of work in the office. It is alleged that the petitioner did not handover files and hence on 29.3.1990 the office Almirah of the petitioner, in which the files were kept, was broken by the Deputy Director, Urban Land Ceiling and the files were taken in possession. Regarding the same, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Director, Urban Land Ceiling and the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

(2.) ON 4.9.1990, the petitioner was placed under suspension on two charges. Firstly, for remaining on casual leave for six days without sanction; and secondly for lodging a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25675 of 1990 in which an interim stay order was granted on 12.10.1990 whereby the suspension of the petitioner was stayed but it was provided that the departmental enquiry could proceed. (The said writ petition was later dismissed in default on 28.1.2004). Then on 4.1.1992 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner levelling three charges, namely, (i) that he remained on leave without sanction from 15.3.1990 to 21.3.1990; (ii) that he reported the matter relating to opening of his office Almirah to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi; and (iii) that there were 101 files missing from the office Almirah of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 1.2.1992. The enquiry report was submitted on 10.6.1992 in which the petitioner was held guilty of the first two charges. With regard to the third charge, since all the files were found, hence the said charge was not proved against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the enquiry officer recommended for the punishment of censor entry to be awarded to the petitioner, alongwith withdrawal of one increment.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. It has further been submitted that although the respondents concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer but gave no reason to differ with the findings with regard to awarding of punishment and has imposed the ultimate punishment of dismissal from service, which is grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. It was lastly contended that the disciplinary authority, who has passed the order dated 7.7.2005, was also holding charge of the Secretary of the Department concerned, who was the appellate authority also and as such the filing of appeal was a futile exercise.