JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on 20.7.1960 as an overseer in the Public Works Department. He was confirmed in 1974. The post of overseer was redesignated as Junior Engineer. He was suspended on 31.7.1975. He challenged the suspension order by Claim Petition No. 1040 (1) of 1976 before U. P. Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal on 4.9.1976 stayed operation of the suspension order after hearing, the respondents as it was admitted before the Tribunal that no steps had been taken against petitioner after suspension nor any charge-sheet was framed. The Tribunal held that the suspension order, in the circumstances, amounted to punishment. But it permitted inquiry to proceed expeditiously. On 27.6.1981 the Superintending Engineer appointed Shri A. P. Garg as Inquiry officer who sent a D.O. on 29.12.1983 to the Executive Engineer. Public Works Provincial Division. Varanasl. for framing charge-sheet against the petitioner. Reminder was sent by him on 6.1.1984 The Executive Engineer framed nine charges against petitioner. It appears to have been received by the inquiry officer after 6.1.1984. He wrote on 12.1.1984 to the executive engineer that the charges were very old and documents were not available from which it could be verified, therefore, he may appear with all papers on 24.1.1984. The Executive Engineer on 3.7.1984 sent his comments on all the charges. The inquiry officer was changed and one Shri N. N. Srivastava was appointed as inquiry officer. He framed only two charges on 16.6.1988 against the petitioner. He was also changed and one Shri K. D. Agarwal, was appointed as Inquiry officer. The petitioner made an application on 30.6.1988 requesting that copies of documents be provided to him so that he may reply to the charges. No order was passed on the application. However, the petitioner was permitted to obtain copies of the document from the executive engineer, Varanasi. Some documents were provided to the petitioner. He on 8.2.1990 again made a request for supply of remaining copies of documents. But it was not supplied. The petitioner on insistence of the inquiry officer submitted his reply to the charges on 13.2.1990. According to the petitioner, even after submission of his reply to the charges, the Inquiry proceedings did not proceed. In August, 1992 he received another letter, from fourth Inquiry officer Shri Suresh Chandra Misra superintending engineer, to appear before him on 21.8.1992. In paragraph 33 of the writ petition, it has categorically been stated that after submission of petitioner's reply to the charges, no date was fixed by the respondents for completion of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has retired, in the meantime, on 30.6,1998. The petitioner seeks quashing of the departmental disciplinary proceedings pending since 1975, for payment of arrears of his salary, promotion and other benefits.

(2.) I have heard Sri B. P. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Srivastava learned standing counsel for the respondents. Inspite of stop order dated 19.7.1999, the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit. Therefore, this petition is being taken up for final disposal. The assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition are uncontroverted. Therefore, In view of the Apex Court judgment, the facts stated in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct. The Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2) SCC (Labour and Service) 1447, has held as under :

(3.) A division bench of this Court In M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Kanpur and others. 1999 (82) FLR 709. has held as under :