DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD U P LUCKNOWS Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL U P LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeshji Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The order dated 8.3.1995, passed by State Public Services Tribunal. U. P.. Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 3T/III/88 preferred by Sri Anand Prakash Misra--respondent No. 2 quashing his dismissal order dated 28.7.1983 has given rise to the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Clerk In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Chibramau, district Farrukhabad and took over charge on 28.1.1981. There were serious allegations against him to the effect that he had squandered the market fee, which he had collected through the farmers ; he was retaining the receipt books and other documents with him. The respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. to the effect that when he was proceeding to the check post, the official records were snatched away from him and that on account of injuries, which he had sustained, he became upset and forgot the details of snatched records. On investigation, the said F.I.R. was found to be false. The Secretary of the Mandi Parishad lodged an F.I.R. against the respondent No. 2 under Sections 409/420 and 218, I.P.C. A criminal case was registered against Sri Anand Prakash Misra, respondent No. 2. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against him. A charge-sheet was served on Sri Misra who submitted his explanation on 9.10.1982. Sri Misra applied for inspection of records on 9.1.1983 and claimed personal hearing on 11.1.1983. According to him, he was not allowed to inspect the records and no opportunity for personal hearing was afforded to him. After concluding the departmental enquiry, an order was passed on 28.7.1983 dismissing Sri Misra from service. The respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, he also flled a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (for short Tribunal). During the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the criminal case against Sri Misra was dismissed as the prosecution had failed to produce the witnesses in spite of the fact that as many as 77 dates were fixed in the case for the purpose. The Tribunal held that the enquiry conducted against Sri Misra was not in conformity with the well-established procedure, inasmuch as, no witnesses were examined and no personal hearing was afforded to Sri Misra, and that the principles of natural Justice had been violated. Accordingly, on the above findings and on the basis of the fact that the criminal case against the respondent No. 2 had come to an end, the Tribunal quashed the order of dismissal dated 28.7.1983. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that Sri Anand Prakash Misra, respondent No. 2 was charged in respect of four separate acts of misconduct, such as, (i) disobeying the orders for submitting the records, (ii) for embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, (iii) interpolation and fabrication in the Government records, and (iv) for destroying and removing the records. According to the learned counsel, a charge- sheet, which contained 13 charges, was served on Sri Mishra on 26.8.1982 to which an explanation was submitted by him. However, since thereafter, inspite of the fact that a number of opportunities were afforded to the delinquent employee, to participate in the enquiry, he deliberately avoided to appear and consequently, on the basis of the material available on record and the admission of Sri Anand Prakash Misra--respondent No, 2, the order of dismissal was passed. It was further urged that since the order of dismissal was passed on 28.7.1983, it was not necessary to supply the copy of the report of enquiry to him as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K. V. Perumal and others. JT 1996 (6) SC 604. It was maintained on behalf of the petitioner that the order of dismissal has been passed after completing the departmental enquiry according to law and that the Tribunal was not justified in passing a blanket order of setting aside the order of dismissal passed against Sri Mishra.