LAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Sri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chungi Moharrir/ Tax Collector, which is a Group-D post in Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela, Pratapgarh by the Chairman under the provisions of Section 75 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The petitioner's appointment on the post of Chungi Moharrir/ Tax Collector was confirmed in August, 1975. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner was performing his duties honestly, competently and diligently, the opposite party no. 3 removed the petitioner from service by an order dated 12. 09. 1997. Copy of the order dated 12. 09. 1997 has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Since the order dated 12. 09. 1997 has been passed by the opposite party no. 3 without conducting any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 12. 09. 1997 passed by the opposite party no. 3 before the apposite party no. 2 under Section 77-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 read with Rule 3 of the U. P. Municipal Servant Appeal Rules, 1967. The said appeal was dismissed by the opposite party no. 2 by a non-speaking order passed on 18. 06. 1998, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by the opposite party no. 3 as well as the opposite party no. 2 by which the petitioner was removed from service are no orders in the eye of law as no reasons have been given in the said orders for justifying the illegal action of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner being a confirmed employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad, he could not be removed from service in the manner in which the opposite parties have proceeded against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the order of the opposite party no. 3 is liable to be quashed on the lone ground that the same had been passed without holding enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner although the said order is stigmatic. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the failure of the appellate authority, opposite party no. 2, to redeem the illegality committed by the opposite party no. 3 has rendered the order of the opposite party no. 2 totally unsustainable in the eye of law. The appellate authority has totally failed to examine the ground on which the petitioner had challenged the correctness and validity of the order dated 12. 09. 1997 passed by the opposite party no. 3 and has dismissed the petitioner's appeal by a cryptic order, which does not show any application of mind. Sri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and do not call for any interference of this Hon'ble Court. Sri Shukla has further submitted that there are serious allegations of misappropriation and embezzlement against the petitioner and hence he is not entitled to grant of any relief by this Hon'ble Court. Sri Shukla, however, failed to bring to the notice of this Court any material to show that before passing the impugned order the opposite party no. 3 had either conducted any enquiry against the petitioner or afforded him any opportunity of hearing. I have carefully examined the respective contentions of the parties and perused the record. The order dated 12. 09. 1997 by which the punishment of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner apparently has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. There is nothing on record to show that prior to passing of the impugned order the opposite party no. 3 had either issued any notice to the petitioner or afforded him any opportunity of hearing. Further, there is no material on record to show that any enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. Since the petitioner has been removed from service without giving any opportunity of hearing in gross violation of the principles of natural justice although the order of removal is stigmatic and no oral enquiry as required by law was held, I am of the view that the order dated 12. 09. 1997 passed by the opposite party no. 3 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner and the order dated 18. 06. 1998 passed by the opposite party no. 2 rejecting the petitioner's appeal by an absolutely non-speaking order are liable to be quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 12. 09. 1997 and 18. 06. 1998 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 1 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 2 are quashed. The normal rule is that when the dismissal order is set aside reinstatement with full back wages has to be granted vide Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar, 1963 II LLJ 371 (SC ). I direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned and he shall be paid full back wages with effect from 12. 09. 1997 till the date of his reinstatement. .