DINESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagannath Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel I for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

(2.) That petitioner who was an employee of U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation hereinafter called as 'Corporation' was placed under Suspension by order dated 4.3.2018 by the Executive Director levelling three charges. Petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry officer on 13.4.2018, he further submitted a supplementary reply on 15.5.2018 enquiry report was submitted on 3.1.2019 recommending that charge No.1 is not proved whereas charge Nos.2 and 3 were recommended to be proved. Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Executive Director issued show cause notice on 4.1.2019 along with the copy of enquiry report requiring petitioner to appear on 22.1.2019. On the basis of which punishment order was passed on 5.3.2019 and the petitioner was dismissed from services. It was further held that an amount of Rs.28,42,061/- be recovered from the petitioner and further an F.I.R. be lodged for the financial irregularity so committed by the petitioner.

(3.) Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the employee of the Corporation are governed by U.P. State Enterprises (Public Enterprises) Model Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules (hereinafter called as 'Model Rules'). According to which Rule 30 provides for suspension while Rule 33 provides for various punishments including minor punishment and major punishment. He further pointed out that major punishment has been provided under Rule 33 (e) and (g). He further invited attention of the Court to Rule 35 which provides for the procedure of awarding major punishment. Sub-clause VII of Rule 35 provides that the enquiry officer shall ask the employee whether he accepts the charges or denies them. He further pointed out to Clause VIII of Rule 35 which provides that in case the charges are denied then the employee for his protection can inspect the documents which are enlisted in the charge-sheet and he can ask for the documents. He further invited the attention of the Court to Clause 11, 13 and 14 of Rule 35 which provides for the opportunity to be given to the employee for oral examination as well as cross-examination. He further contends that in the present case, the procedure laid down in Rule 35 is exhaustive and provides the procedure for conducting departmental enquiry, but in the present case the enquiry officer did not proceed in view of Rule 35 and only after considering the reply of the petitioner recommended for the punishment to the Disciplinary Authority who adopted the enquiry report and dismissed the petitioner from services.