BANSHI LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Badrish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner,learned Standing Counsel and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of termination dated 15.05.2004 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, the petitioner, above-named, has filed the instant writ petition primarily on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry in fair manner and has submitted its report without fixing any date, time and place for examination of the witnesses; the petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and as such, the inquiry proceedings being in breach of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 vitiates the impugned order of termination. It has also been contended that the petitioner has made a representation dated 04.01.2002 for change of the place of the inquiry but despite reminders it was not disposed of causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

(3.) Clarifying the position, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Inquiry Officer/ Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow served a charge-sheet upon the petitioner levelling two charges; firstly a complaint was made by Smt. Madhu Bala about the Claim Petition No.303 of 1998 (Shakuntala Devi v. Harendra Pal Singh) and during the preliminary inquiry it was found that a racket is operating for filing fake claim petition on the basis of the fictitious and fake documents and the petitioner was also involved in filing fictitious claim petitions with certain clerks and Advocate and he is guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty in discharging of his duties in view of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956; and secondly, while the petitioner was posted as Clerk in the court of IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, on 28.09.2001 during search some claim petition, forms, some prepared claim petitions, some blank Vakalatnama bearing thumb impression, some watermark bearing thumb impression of someone and Insurance cover note etc. were recovered from his Almirah and official table and satisfactory explanation was not given by the petitioner with regard to these material, therefore, he was guilty of misconduct and negligence in discharging of his duty and violation of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.