VIJAY NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had challenged the order dated 28.6.1991 passed by respondent No. 2, terminating the petitioner's service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a Class-Ill employee the District Agriculture Officer is not appointing authority and, therefore, he could not have passed the order of dismissal. He secondly contends that the Inquiry Officer, who was asked to hold inquiry and submit report, instead of submitting the report had passed an order of dismissal. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer, who was asked to submit report, cannot pass order of dismissal. The third contention raised by him was that the documents on which the Disciplinary authority had relied on, was not supplied alongwith the charge-sheet. Giving of inspection of those documents would not absolve the process of opportunity to be given to a delinquent, as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution. Inasmuch as even without asking copies ought to be furnished, else opportunity would be deemed to have been denied. The form for issuing charge-sheet as provided in the relevant rule specifies that the documents to be relied upon ought to be furnished alongwith the charge-sheet. The fourth contention raised by him was that no inquiry at all had even taken place as against the petitioner, by reason whereof the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity.

(2.) Sri. R.K. Saxena, learned Standing Counsel, opposing Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, contended that the petitioner being a Class III employee, District Agriculture Officer was his appointing authority and competent to pass order of dismissal, as is apparent from the order or the rules governing the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-CA 3 to the counter affidavit. According to him the Deputy Director on misapprehension inadvertently thought himself to be the appointing authority and, therefore, he had appointed the Assistant Agriculture Officer as Inquiry Officer, who is really a competent authority, to pass the order of dismissal. The order of appointment of the petitioner was issued by the District Development Officer (Project Officer), which designation was subsequently redesignated as District Agriculture Officer. According to him the appointing authority can himself hold inquiry and dismiss a delinquent. Such an action would never be an infraction in the realm of denial of opportunity. He contends next that it is not necessary that all the documents ought to be furnished alongwith the charge-sheet. Opportunity would not be denied in inspection is allowed of all the documents relied upon. The opportunity provided not being in the public interest and being in the interest of delinquent himself, if there are substantial compliance then formal compliance may not render the decision infructuous. It is not disputed that inspection of the documents relied upon were given to the petitioner. He contends next that there was an inquiry held, in which appropriate opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence or cross-examine the witnesses and opportunity of being heard. Therefore, according to him writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) After having heard the submissions made by and on behalf of either of the parties, it appears from Annexure-CA 3 that the District Planning Officer/District Panchayat Raj Officer, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Cooperative Officer/District Agriculture Officers, are the appointing authority, in respect of Group-III posts. On the face of the said order contained in Annexure CA 3 it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2, is not the appointing authority. Neither it can be said that he is not competent to dismiss the petitioner. Learned Counsel has not disputed that the petitioner held a group III post and that the said order contained in Annexure-CA 3 is applicable. Therefore, the first point taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be sustained.