ADESH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Assistant (Finance-1 Anubhag) in the office of Directorate of Education U. P., Allahabad. He was looking after the work of granting aid and compensation to recognised schools of Falzabad Region under Tribhasha Anudan Scheme. On 11.3.88 he was served with the charge sheet from Additional Director of Education (Basic) who directed the petitioner to give explanation with regard to the charges on the same day before leaving the office. He submitted reply to the charges on 11.3.88. He also gave a detailed reply on 14.3.88. On 1.7.89 Shri K. N. Dhawan was appointed as enquiry officer. He framed 12 charges against the petitioner and on 3.8.89 charge-sheet was received by him, Thereafter, Shri D. S. Puri was appointed as enquiry officer, the charges related to irregularities committed by the petitioner in the year 1987-88. The petitioner claimed that copies of documents, which were to be relied by the respondents in support of the charges, have not been supplied to him. On 5/7.8.89 he requested for copies of the documents. He also sent reminder on 29.8.89. The respondents on 31.8.89 enquired from the petitioner as to what documents the petitioner wanted to inspect. The petitioner on 31.8.89 intimated the enquiry officer that he wanted to Inspect the file mentioned in letter dated 31.8.89 which were necessary for giving explanation. The respondents showed the petitioner five out of twelve files. The remaining files were not shown to the petitioner. However, on 7.12.89 the petitioner submitted his reply. It was categorically alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that no domestic enquiry was held in the presence of petitioner nor any evidence was produced in respect of the charges in the enquiry. No date for holding enquiry was fixed. Neither the petitioner was given information about the domestic enquiry nor about the proceedings. The petitioner brought these facts to the notice of Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Allahabad by his letters dated 30.9.91 and 18.9.92. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 13.10.92 stopping annual increments of the petitioner for a period of one year and also awarded censor entry. On the request of the petitioner copy of the enquiry report was given to him along with letter dated 12.11.92. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Director of Education. (Basic) U. P.. Allahabad which was rejected on 1.3.94 by Assistant Director of Education (Basic). The representation made by the petitioner to the State Government was also rejected on 25.9.95 as time barred. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13.10.92, 1.3.94 and 25.9.95 Annexures-11, 16 and 19 by means of instant writ petition.

(2.) 1 have heard Shri J. N. Tewari assisted by Shri Rakesh Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Srivastava learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned standing counsel was directed to produce record, which has been produced by him. He has also filed supplementary counter affidavit, which has been replied by the petitioner by a supplementary rejoinder affidavit.

(3.) The petitioner was a clerk in the Directorate of Education (Basic). The respondents framed twelve charges against the petitioner. The charges were that the petitioner committed irregularities and did not properly verify the demands sent to Directorate by Basic Shiksha Adhikari of the district. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. He also recorded a finding that the Basic Education Officers of the districts Pratapgarh, Sultanpur and Faizabad did not properly examine and verify the papers submitted by unaided basic schools for sanction of the grant under Tribhasha Anudan Scheme. However, the enquiry officer did not conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner alleged in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that no date was fixed for holding the enquiry nor any information was given to the petitioner about the domestic enquiry nor any evidence was produced or examined by the enquiry officer. The respondents have not specifically denied the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. Paragraph 11 of the writ petition has been replied vaguely by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. There is nothing on the records of the respondents produced before this court or in the counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit to demonstrate that the enquiry officer fixed any date in the disciplinary proceedings or examined any witness or conducted any proceedings in the presence of the petitioner. The enquiry officer carried the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner without affording him proper opportunity of hearing, which vitiated the enquiry proceedings. Fairness and reasonableness in procedure is also facet of principles of natural justice. Since I have found that the entire enquiry proceedings were carried out in utter violation of principles of natural Justice, the impugned orders passed by the respondents cannot be maintained. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits of service including promotion form the date his juniors were promoted. He shall also be entitled for arrears of salary.