S P SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Excise Commissioner in the Excise Department in the State of U. P. In respect of his posting at Raebareilly in the year 2002-2003, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 25. 2. 2003 containing two charges. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and denied the allegations made therein. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, in turn, issued noticed dated 5. 4. 2004 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate punishment be not imposed. A copy of the inquiry report was also forwarded to the petitioner. After reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the disciplinary authority in terms of Rules 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter called the Rules of 1999), read with Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1954 (hereinafter called the Regulation of 1954) forwarded the relevant documents for consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the 'commission') qua the punishment proposed. It appears that the Commission in the facts of the case, opined that punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and a censure entry would suffice. The State Government, not being satisfied with the consultation so made by the Commission, by means of its letter dated 4. 8. 2004 requested the Commission to reconsider the proposal of punishment of dismissal from service as was proposed by the authority. The Commission second time also did not agree with the proposal of dismissal from service and recommended that the punishment of withholding the three annual increments with cumulative effect in the facts of the case would be justified.

(2.) THE State Government was not satisfied with the opinion of the Commission, therefore, in exercise of powers under Rule 51 of the U. P. Sachivalay Anudesh, 1982, decided to place the matter before the Cabinet of Ministers for consideration of the final punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner. THE Cabinet in its meeting held on 13. 1. 2006, approved the punishment of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with an order dated 23. 1. 2006, issued by the Principal Secretary (Excise) dismissing him from service. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and have examined the records of the writ petition as well as the original records pertaining to punishment inflicted upon the petitioner.