RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termina tion/dismissal dated 20th July, 1990 as well as the charge-sheet on the basis of which the said order was passed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as unfolded in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was Ex.-Army man, was appointed as a Clerk by the Collector/president, District Soldiers (Sailers and Airmen's) Board, Bulandshahr, vide order dated 17-4-70. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Alongwith the letter dated 16-6-1989 charge-sheet of the same date was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2, under the signature of Col. P. P. S. Yadav, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation of six charges levelled against him. THE charges were based on the documents/material referred to and relied upon in charge-sheet, but the copies of the said documents were not sup plied to the petitioner. Petitioner on receipt of the charge-sheet, requested the respon dent No. 2. to supply the copies of the docu ments, which were referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet; but they were not supplied to him. In the absence of the docu ments referred to above, petitioner was not in a position to file his effective reply of the aforesaid charge-sheet. However, peti tioner submitted his reply to the Enquiry Officer Mr. C. S. Chauhan on 29-6-89 alongwith the covering letter stating therein that he will like to produce the evidence oral and documentary in support of his case and he will also like to cross-examine the witnesses, if produced against him. Petitioner com plained that the proceedings were initiated and conducted at the instance of one Mr. R. P. Singh, who was instrumental against him and was himself responsible for the manipulation of the documents/official records, which were subject-matter of the charges levelled against the petitioner. THE Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14-10-89 called upon Sri R. P. Singh and other persons named in paragraph 16 of the writ petition to appear before him and to produce the evidence in respect of the charges. He has also fixed 20-10-89 for appearance of the said persons before him. However the said order was never complied with. Neither Mr. R. P. Singh, nor other persons appeared before the Enquiry Officer. THE requisite documents were also not produced by them. THE Enquiry Officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with the Rules ap peared to have submitted some report against the petitioner. However, the said report did not see the light of the day and was never communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that no definite findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the char ges levelled against the petitioner. How ever, respondent No. 2 without supplying the copy of the report of enquiry to the petitioner and without affording an oppor tunity to defend himself and to show cause against the proposed punishment, dis missed him from service in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as viola tion of provisions of Article 311 of the Con stitution of India vide order dated 20- 7-89.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand, contended that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with law and that it was not necessary for the respon dent No. 2 to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner in view of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution.