RAM BHUL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOBHA Dikshit J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-1985 passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal, partly allowing the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal while affirming the part of the order dismissing the petitioner from service dated 21-12-1981 quashed the part of the order by which recovery from the petitioner was directed. The said judgment has been challenged primarily on the ground that the entire departmental en quiry which was held against the petitioner was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Assis tant Development Officer (Agriculture) vide orders dated 7-12-1962 and he joined as such on 1-1-1970 in Project Office, Aligarh. Thereafter he was posted at several places. While he was posted as Assistant Develop ment Officer, Agriculture in block Chharra as Agriculture Inspector (Supply) in Buffer Godown, Aligarh, an audit for the period April, 1973 to July, 1974 of the buffer godown was carried out, whereupon serious financial irregularities were reported by the said audit team. The Director (Agriculture) after receiving the audit report ordered the Project Officer, Aligarh to make enquiry into the matter and hold departmental proceedings against all the persons who have been held responsible for the alleged irregularities. This included the petitioner and three other persons. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 5-6-1975 by the Project Officer. Departmental proceedings were in itiate and a charge-sheet dated 3-9-1975 was served upon the petitioner containing six charges relating to various irregularities like non-tally of entries with the record with the physical verification of jute bags, correc tion in the receipts but corresponding entries in the register were not corrected, loss of fertiliser in transit, excess adjustment in the name of sweeping allowance etc. In the charge-sheet, the evidence mentioned in support of the charges was the report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Development Officer. However, a copy of the said preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. In fact, no other document was supplied to the petitioner which was mentioned in the evidence. PETITIONER made a request to furnish the copy or permit him to inspect the record. The copies were however not made avail able but the petitioner was permitted to in spect the records. According to the petitioner, he was very much handicapped in furnishing a reply but left with no option, he submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 8-10-1975. In the reply, petitioner had sub mitted that there could be an error in some entries' but on facts and physical verifica tion, there could be no error found in the manner he had performed his duties. It was further submitted that if at all the enquiry is to be conducted, it should be conducted against all the persons who have been found responsible by the audit party. While the enquiry was so pending, a supplementary charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner after more than two years on 28-10-1976 and the said charges also related to misappropriation and embezzlement with regard to stocks and money. PETITIONER sub mitted a reply to this also. After submitting the reply, the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Enquiry Officer as to the date fixed for leading evidence or cross- examining the witnesses. It has been alleged that the matter remains pending and the petitioner after a lapse of several years received the impugned order dated 21-12-1981 dismissing him from service. It was provided in the said order that Rs. 87, 072. 00. shall be recovered from the petitioner.

(3.) HIS next ground of challenge is that some extraneous material has been con sidered by the punishing authority as it has placed reliance on a letter dated 9-12-1975 to prove charge No. 4 whereas this letter was cited as evidence in the chargesheet.