DODDAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.S. Pandey for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was charge sheeted and enquiry report was submitted on 16.11.1994, which culminated into punishment of dismissal and reversion of promotional scale and recovery of excess amount. He preferred Writ Petition No. 29115 of 1997 which was allowed by judgment dated 22.5.2003 wherein all the punishment orders were quashed and liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of charge sheet. Operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under:

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter he requested the respondents to proceed with the fresh enquiry as per direction of this Court but no oral enquiry was conducted by the respondents. Letters were issued by the authority concerned to the petitioner requiring him to submit reply which he submitted and thereafter straightway impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned Standing Counsel placed original record pertaining to the said enquiry which commenced by letter dated 5.12.2005 sent by the enquiry officer directing the petitioner to submit his reply. It is said that the petitioner did not submit any proper reply to the said charge sheet but sent various letters requiring the authorities to show documents to him and in these circumstances, respondents had no option but to proceed further. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 12.2.2004. Without holding any oral enquiry, the impugned order has been passed. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate with the authorities to proceed with the enquiry. However, from the record, I find that the respondents have acted in a very negligent manner showing as if they had no knowledge of procedure and how to conduct departmental enquiry. Though earlier punishment was already quashed by this Court and the respondents were permitted to hold a fresh enquiry, but it appears that after issuing letter to the petitioner to submit his reply, the respondents proceeded straightway and have passed the impugned order. The record produced before this Court nowhere shows that any oral enquiry was conducted against the petitioner whereunder charges were proved and thereafter he was given opportunity to disprove the charges. The procedure followed by the respondents, therefore, is violative of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. Holding of oral enquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty as held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. T.P. Lal Srivastava, 1997(1) LLJ 831 as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) U.P.L.B.E.C.541.