MOHD JAVED KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by Mohd. Javed Khan challenges the order of dismissal from service dated 20. 2. 2006 passed by the Secretary, State Haj Committee.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Clerk in State Haj Committee on 1. 12. 1986. He was promoted on the post of Senior Administrative Officer on 18. 2. 1998, and thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Secretary (Haj) by the Chairman, State Haj Committee on 28. 1. 2000. He faced a reversion order from the post of Assistant Secretary (Haj) to the post of Senior Clerk on 6. 5. 2003, which was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court, in which an interim order of stay was passed on 14. 5. 2003, staying the reversion order. THE petitioner was, thereafter suspended within a span of 21 days on 2. 6. 2003, but the same was revoked on 2. 8. 2003 and he was allowed to resume duty on 2. 8. 2003. Since even after revocation of the suspension order and allowing him to join duties, the petitioner was not being paid salary, therefore, he filed a writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2003 for payment of salary, and on 10. 2. 2004, the Court had directed that the payment be made including arrears of salary to the petitioner. THE order was again not complied with, compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition, wherein notices were issued. On issuance of notice of contempt, an application for recall of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2003 was filed, wherein it has come before the Court that the petitioner was not allowed to join after revocation of the order of suspension and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to resume duty. THE Court also observed that the question regarding payment of salary from the date of revocation of suspension order till joining of the petitioner shall be decided by the Secretary, Minorities Welfare, Government of U. P. THE Secretary, Minorities Welfare, Government of U. P. has made certain observations on 16. 4. 2004, saying that the petitioner was being harassed by the opposite parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has specifically argued that the enquiry proceedings were without jurisdiction and that the enquiry report was back dated. The fact, however, is that in this enquiry, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate therein by the enquiry officer, as no date, time and place was ever fixed nor was communicated to him.