RADHEY SHAYM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.-Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.88 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and dated 10.10.1989 whereby his appeal was rejected, he preferred claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) vide Reference No. 156/III/1990 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 28th July, 1997 hence the petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders as well as the judgment of the Tribunal.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Gram Sewak on 26.3.1968. By order dated 27th February, 1981, he was placed under suspension, whereafter charge-sheet was issued on 22nd June, 1981 requiring him to submit his reply. Block Development Officer Asodhar was appointed Inquiry Officer. The petitioner did not submit any reply despite of time granted on various occasions. A notice was published in the daily newspaper "Amrit Prabhat" on 21st October, 1987 directing him to appear in the office of Block Development Officer and obtain copy of the charge-sheet as well as other documents relied by him and submit his reply but he did not avail the same. Again on 21st March, 1988 charge-sheet and documentary evidences were sent by registered post directing the petitioner to submit reply, but he failed. On 26th September, 1988, he was again directed to submit reply but still he defied the order and on the contrary demanded certain documents. Ultimately on 22nd December, 1988, order of dismissal was passed by the District Development Officer holding charges proved against the petitioner whereagainst he filed appeal on 22nd September, 1988 before the District Magistrate which was also rejected by the appellate authority.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record and considering rival submissions we find that the appointing authority of the petitioner was Additional District Magistrate (Planning)/District Planning Officer, Fatehpur. The order dated 26th March, 1968, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the same was issued by the Commissioner Agricultural Production and Rural Development, U. P. communicating his approval for appointment of certain candidates whose list was enclosed thereto for appointment on the post of Gram Sewak. Para 4 provides that the appointment letter shall be issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Planning)/District Planning Officer. The District Development Officer, Fatehpur on 27.2.1981 placed the petitioner under suspension and appointed Block Development Officer Asodhar as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner made complaint about non-receipt of charge-sheet. The press note dated 21st October, 1987, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-8 to the writ petition shows that notice was published by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur directing the petitioner to collect charge-sheet and evidence from the Block Development Officer, Asodhar, Fatehpur and submit his reply within 15 days to the Enquiry Officer failing which it would be deemed that he does not intend to give any reply and all the charges are acceptable to him and the matter shall be proceeded ex parte. The petitioner claimed that he went to Vikas Khand Adhikari Asodhar, Fatehpur but could not get copy of the charge-sheet and other documents whereafter made representations to the Commissioner Agricultural Production and Rural Development and District Development Officer, Fatehpur. It appears that on 5th February, 1988 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated and Rs. 10,984 be recovered from him and he was required to submit his reply. The said show cause notice was issued by District Development Officer, Fatehpur. The petitioner again complained with regard to non-receipt of charge-sheet and also non-payment of subsistence allowance vide representation, copy whereof is filed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition. Annexure-21 is a copy of the letter dated 21st March, 1988, issued by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur stating that a copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.6.81 as well as documents relied in support of the charges are being sent and the petitioner after receiving the same may submit his reply within fifteen days failing which it would be deemed that he does not propose to say anything and ex parte order shall be passed. The said letter is again by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur and a copy thereof was endorsed to the Block Development Officer, Asodhar, Fatehpur with direction to obtain reply from the petitioner and complete enquiry proceedings within fifteen days. Thereafter it appears that on 22.12.1988 the District Development Officer, Fatehpur passed the impugned order of dismissal and for recovery of Rs. 10,684 from the petitioner, whereagainst he submitted his appeal to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur who rejected the same vide order dated 24.10.89. From the perusal of the punishment order of the District Development Officer, Fatehpur, we do not find any reference to the enquiry report of the Block Development Officer, Asodhar, Fatehpur who was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, the impugned order shows that the disciplinary authority passed the same assuming that since the petitioner did not submit his reply therefore, he has nothing to say in his defence and the disciplinary authority deemed it sufficient compliance of the procedure enabling him to pass punishment order.