DEO NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.8.75 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the post of Group 2 of Subordinate Agriculture Services, the order dated 17.3.82 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service and the order dated 23.3.91 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that it was on 12.10.57 that the petitioner was appointed as Group 3 employee in Subordinate Agriculture Services U.P. and his services were confirmed on 1.1.1974. It was on 2.12.1974 that the petitioner was promoted to a Group 2 post in the said department. It was on 16.8.75 that the petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, on 8.10.76, a charge-sheet was served upon him under the signature of the Project Officer, Gonda, of which the petitioner submitted his reply, but subsequently on 14.1.1977 aforesaid charge-sheet was cancelled by respondent No. 2. A fresh charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 13.4.1977 and respondent No. 3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the charge-sheet, petitioner applied to supply him certain documents, as according to him, without said documents it was not possible to file effective reply of the charge-sheet. THEreafter on 28.8.78, a supplementary charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner. Even after receipt of the supplementary charge-sheet, the petitioner applied to the Inquiry Officer, to supply certain documents, which were required for preparing reply/objection of the charge-sheet. Another application to the same effect was filed on 15.11.78; but even then the requisite documents were not supplied to the petitioner. However, it was on 12.5.1980, that petitioner has filed his explanation. After the explanation was filed by the petitioner, It Is stated, that he was not apprised of any date or the place for conducting the enquiry by the Inquiry Officer, nor he was afforded opportunity to produce his evidence, or to cross-examine the witnesses. If any, examined against him by the department. THE Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte report on 24.11.1981. According to the aforesaid report, out of 45 charges only three charges were stated to have been proved against the petitioner. In the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, on the basts of the charges, which were proved against the petitioner, no major penalty could be awarded to the petitioner, he, therefore, recommended to the punishing authority to award minor punishment to him. On receipt of the enquiry report, the punishing authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on certain charges and on the basis of the charges, which were stated to have been proved against the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner from service on 17.3.1982.

(3.) VALIDITY of the judgment and order passed by this Court referred to above was challenged in Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, petitioner was informed by letter dated 5.7.91, that the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the appellate authority. Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents in the Supreme Court was allowed on 15.11.93 and the case was remanded to this Court for deciding the writ petition on merits as earlier writ petition was allowed on the ground that show cause notice along with the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. Said ground was found untenable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakaran, 1993 Vol. 4 SCC 727.