LAWS(ALL)-1999-12-26

SHIV NAYAK PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 09, 1999
SHIV NAYAK PANDEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorarl quashing the order of dismissal from service and recovery of Rs. 13,90,526. Further a prayer has also been made to issue a writ tn the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits of service.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, stated in brief, is that while being posted as District Youth Welfare and Prantiya Vikas Dal Officer. Bahraich, he was suspended by order dated 28.8.1992 in contemplation of enquiry on the charges of financial irregularities and embezzlement of money. That suspension order was subsequently revoked by the State Government by order dated 1.10.1992. However, the disciplinary enquiry was to continue against the petitioner. Thereafter on 15.6.1993 the opposite parties issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner to which he submitted reply on 12.8.1993. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 11.4.1996 along with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer against which the petitioner made representation on 27.6.1996. However, the said enquiry report was cancelled vide orders dated 17.7.1997 and a fresh enquiry was ordered. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report without holding any enquiry and on the basis of the said report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by order dated 26.6.1998. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 15.7.1998 denying all the charges. Thereafter by order dated 21.8.1998, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal from service and recovery of money, as aforesaid.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal from service and imposing recovery has been passed against him on certain charges framed on the basis of some letters/documents/ notings. reports. It has been submitted that In the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer did not record any evidence to establish the charges and in spite of his demand, the persons making the reports were not examined in his presence with opportunity to him to cross-examine the persons who had made the reports. According to him, no enquiry was held in accordance with law and the enquiry was concluded without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to meet the charges and prove his Innocence. The petitioner has also alleged that copies of certain documents were not supplied to him violating the rules of equity and natural justice. On this premise the petitioner assails the Impugned order mainly on the ground that the said order has been passed contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 55 of CCA Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot sustain in the eye of law.