RAM RAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sales Tax Officer in the Trade Tax Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and actually retired on 31 -1 -01. On 18th January, 2002, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet bearing the date as 29th December, 2001. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner made an application dated 20th September, 2002 stating therein that the enquiry proceedings were liable to be revoked.

(2.) HOWEVER, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner were continued and on 15/16th January, 2003 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with an enquiry report dated 8th March, 2002. The petitioner sub mitted his reply dated 18th January, 2003 to the second show cause notice and vide letter dated 5th April, 2003, he has requested for revocation of the entire proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel in reply submits that permission to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was obtained from the Minister concerned in accordance with the Business Regulation on 11-1-01, this sanction of the Minister is deemed to be on behalf of the Governor, in view of the Business Rules/regulation, no further permission from the Governor in the facts of the case was required. It is, therefore, submitted that the letter dated 22nd November, 2005 is superfluous and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner do not warrant any interference. Reliance for the purpose has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 1 UPLBEC 56, State of U. P. and others v. Harihar Bhole Nath.