KRISHNA KISHORE SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order of removal from service dated 24.6.1986, which seems to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Irrigation Department as Assistant Engineer on 7th February, 1961. He was given the charge of Executive Engineer with nomenclature of Incharge Assistant Engineer. With effect from 24th March, 1974, he was given the regular charge of the Executive Engineer. While serving at Pipri as Executive Engineer of the Construction Division, the petitioner was given additional charge of another area namely Rihand Dam. While serving there, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 20th August, 1975 with the due approval of the state government. In response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 30-11 -1975, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. After receipt of the reply to the charge- sheet, no oral enquiry was conducted and the petitiioner was also not provided the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, straightaway, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report after providing the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 18.12.1975.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, merely providing the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer shall not substitute the procedure of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It appears that the matter was kept pending by the opposite parties and no final decision was taken inspite of submission of the enquiry report some time by the end of the year 1975. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the post of Executive Engineer and was given the regular pay scale of the post of Executive Engineer from 15th May, 1982. He was also given the selection grade from 1 st July, 1982. According to petitioner's counsel, since the promotional avenues were provided to the petitioner, he was under the impression that he had been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and the matter stood finalized.