KHIMMAN SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as peon on 1.9.80 in District Judgeship of Bulandshahr. In 1985 the petitioner and one another process server were handed over papers of an execution case and were directed to execute it by arresting the Judgment debtor. According to petitioner, the dispute was settled on intervention of certain persons of the village and the settlement was endorsed on the warrant. Later, on a complaint made by the decree holder, an inquiry was directed by the District Judge and Shri D. N. Arya was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He framed the charge-sheet and served it on petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply as well. Before completion of inquiry, Shri Arya was transferred. Another Inquiry Officer was appointed. He too was transferred. Thereafter, Shri Om Pal Singh, Additional District Judge was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He issued same charge-sheet on 29.9.86. It was in English. Since the charge was same, the petitioner stated that his reply, filed earlier, may be treated as his reply. A copy of it has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On 10.11.86 the petitioner moved an application before the Inquiry officer that he had filed the affidavits of Ram Gopal Sharma and Choudhary Nukari Singh and they may be kept on record. On 1.12.86 he moved an application that the persons mentioned above were witnesses of the endorsement on the warrant, therefore, they may be summoned as witnesses. According to petitioner, he was asked by the inquiry officer to file fresh reply to the charges mentioning therein his mistake and tendering apology and if he did so, he would talk to the district Judge for a favourable order. The petitioner on 2.12.86 filed fresh reply Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.12.86. And the District Judge, on the basis of the report, terminated the services of the petitioner on 4.12.86. The appeal of the petitioner failed. He has challenged the termination order dated 4.12.86 and the appellate order dated 25.2.87 filed as Annexures-9 and 10 respectively to, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Swapnil Kumar urged that the termination order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses nor he was permitted to examine the witnesses even though he moved an application on 1.12.86. The learned counsel submitted that the charge-sheet served on petitioner was in English and even though he demanded a copy in Hindi but it was not supplied to him which seriously prejudiced him in his defence. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner never confessed the charges levelled against him. And the finding of Inquiry Officer was based on no material. He was critical of the Inquiry Officer and urged that the incident being more than a year old it was not easy to prove, therefore, he adopted an improper procedure of taking advantage of a poor and uneducated man. The learned counsel pointed out that the manner in which the proceedings were concluded and the hurry with which the services of petitioner were terminated leave no room for doubt that the decision had been taken earlier and the proceedings were an empty formality.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents Shri K. R. Sirohi urged that the petitioner was given personal hearing by the Inquiry Officer. He vehemently defended the order and denied any allegation of any motive. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner never demanded Hindi translation of the charge-sheet. He argued that once the petitioner confessed his guilt and stated that he did not want to cross-examine any witnesses the question of denial of natural Justice did not arise. He submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not commit any error in submitting his report nor the District Judge committed any error of law or fact in passing the order by which the petitioner's services have been terminated. The orders passed by the respondents were thus not liable to any interference by this Court.