ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following orders were passed in the matter on 19.8.2019:-

(2.) District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shamli, has filed an affidavit in which the earlier stand taken is reiterated. It appears that the officer is oblivious of the fact that once the charged officer denies the charges, there exists requirement of holding enquiry, and that unless such requirement is adhered to, there would be no occasion for affording opportunity of personal hearing. This Court finds that despite specific directions and observations of the Court, the authority concerned has proceeded to ignore the observations and has virtually reiterated the stand taken earlier. Despite Court's observation, the authority concerned has still not cared to read the order and has reiterated the stand taken earlier. This cannot be approved of. The manner in which the authority concerned has proceeded to defy the previous order passed by this Court would clearly go to show that neither the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been adhered nor the required enquiry in compliance of the principles of natural justice have not been undertaken.

(3.) No date, time and place has been fixed for enquiry nor any statement etc. has been recorded of persons, which is sought to be relied upon against the petitioner. The authority concerned appears to have laboured under a misconception that what is expected of him is merely to give an opportunity of hearing. The opportunity of hearing has to be an effective opportunity and the stage in that regard would arise only after the enquiry officer proceeds to hold an enquiry. Being a quasi-judicial authority, the enquiry officer is expected to record statements and rely upon materials, which have been produced in the departmental enquiry. Without any enquiry conducted as per law the question of grant of opportunity would not arise. Even in the affidavit, which has been filed, this aspect of the matter is ignored notwithstanding the previous order of this Court. Consequently, the order impugned dated 17.9.2018 cannot be sustained and stands quashed.