GOPAL KRISHNA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. N.Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fatehuddin learned Standing Counsel for the opp osite parties nos.1 to 3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14/28.1.2009, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, has filed the instant writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that a chargesheet dated 19.9.2001 was issued to him against which a reply was submitted on 28.12.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after submission of the reply to the chargesheet, no oral inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer and the impugned punishment order was passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. She further submits that no date,time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer and as such there was no inquiry in the eyes of law. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly conceded that no date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer for holding inquiry. We have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The chargesheet dated 19.9.2001 was served upon the petitioner and thereafter, he submitted his reply before the inquiry officer on 28.12.2001 as alleged in the writ petition. By the impugned order dated 14/28.1.2009, the recovery order has been passed against the petitioner. The impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. Admittedly, no date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer for holding the oral inquiry in the matter and no witnesses were examined by the department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is settled law of this court that after submission of the reply to the chargesheet, an oral inquiry is a must. In the instant case, no oral inquiry to prove the charges was held by the inquiry officer. The impugned order is legally not sustainable. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 14/28.1.2009, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to hold a fresh inquiry from the stage of reply to the chargesheet, in accordance with law.