MATA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as acting Deputy Collector (now retired) on the charges that he made certain allotment of land without complying with the procedure. The charge No. 1 related to the appointment of Rajesh Kumar as Seasonal Collection Amin who was the son of the petitioner. Although his appointment was for a period commenced from 17.2.1993 to 31.3.1993. I.e., only for a period of 1 1/2 months. According to the charge, he never started his duty as Seasonal Collection Amin. The petitioner has also appointed one Sudhir Kumar Shukla as Seasonal Collection Amin for different periods who also did not perform his duties but both these persons have realised their salary. According to charge No. 1, the petitioner also appointed one Raghu Nath Prasad as Seasonal Collection Amin in the month of May, 1993 but he also did not work and his salary was paid. The second charge against the petitioner related to allotment of khalihan and land to 79 persons. Besides, above allotments were made in favour of 38 persons. It could not be made as such lands were entered khalihan--rasta, pashu ghar, talab and nala. The third charge related to auction of the village land on a paltry sum of Rs. 9.500 when his valuation was about 1 1/2 lac but as a complaint was made the auction could not be implemented. The fourth charge pertaining to exchange of land by the petitioner in violation of Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act by a simple order. The petitioner submitted his explanation against those charges but in the meantime, he attained the age of superannuation and was retired. Thereafter the enquiry proceedings under Rule 351A of Civil Services Regulation against the petitioner was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority in which he recorded a finding that charges stood proved against the petitioner. Ultimately on 18th July. 1998, the State Government ordered the deduction of 20% pension from the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the said order the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Before dealing with the question as to whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner suffers from any infirmity or not and the order passed by the Government of U. P. Is legal or not. It would be relevant to produce Rule 351A of Civil Services Regulations.

(3.) A perusal of the Rule it self Indicate that while holding a departmental enquiry under Rule 351A. It is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to follow the procedure which is applicable to the proceedings of which an order of dismissal from service may be made. The procedure which is to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings for dismissal has been indicated in Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules which provide an elaborate departmental enquiry which is reproduced below :