ABHAI PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. The petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed the present writ petition against the order of dismissal on the ground that while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has not issued any show cause notice to the petitioner. The other ground raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal has not considered the material ground advanced by the petitioner while filing the appeal against the impugned order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) THE brief facts relating to the present controversy are narrated as under: THE petitioner has been the member of the Agricultural Service Group-III. He was a permanent employee whose services were confirmed on 28. 7. 1995. In the year 1996, the petitioner was posted as Plant Production Supervisor in Barhpur unit of District Farrukhabad, which is situated in the remote area of the district adjoining forest land where a theft took place. According to the petitioner's counsel, the official residence provided to the petitioner, situate in the block office. A Class IV employee Shri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, who was working as chowkidar, was transferred by the District Plant/agriculture Officer. THE petitioner made request for posting of a guard/chowkidar but his request could not get favour of the authority. In the night between 16th/17th November, 1996, a theft took place and Government property was taken away by the thieves. A first information report was lodged by the petitioner at police station on 17. 11. 1996. However, apart from the incident of theft, the petitioner was suspended for other charges also, in consequence whereof, he filed Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1990 and the High Court has directed to expedite enquiry. THE charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner consisting of five charges. A copy of the charge-sheet is filed as Annexure-4 to 'the writ petition. THE petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. According to the petitioner's counsel, during the course of enquiry, the petitioner demanded various documents including certain papers relating to theft of Government property which is alleged to be taken away by the thieves but the same was not supplied to him. However, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26. 2. 1999, a copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. THE Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from almost all the charges with a finding that the petitioner should have taken more precaution while discharging duty on the post in question. Copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner by the respondents.

(3.) A perusal of the order, passed by the appellate authority indicates that the appellate authority was impressed by the fact that the theft took place in the godown causing the loss to State exchequer for an amount of Rs. 1 lac or more, as referred to hereinabove. No finding has been recorded by the appellate authority relating to the grounds and the question raised by the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has also not recorded a finding relating to the inaction on the part of the district authorities to take appropriate measure by providing chowkidar for the godown in question. The appellate authority has also not given any finding in regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal relating to non-supply of certain documents in spite of the demand made by the petitioner. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel.