SANT LAL SETHI Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court dated June 8, 1990 affirming on appeal those of the learned trial Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent was illegal.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) was working as Assistant Malaria Officer, Namaul. He was placed under suspension vide order dated November 3, 1977 as a regular departmental enquiry on certain charges was contemplated against him. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1952 vide memo dated January 16, 1978. The charge memo was accompanied with the statement of allegations. The plaintiff was asked to file reply to the charge memo but despite repeated reminders and various extensions granted to him, he failed to file reply to the charge memo. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the regular enquiry in accordance with rules. He found the charges levelled against the plaintiff as proved. On receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report, show cause notice was given to the plaintiff as to why penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. The plaintiff filed reply to the show cause notice. He was afforded personal hearing by the disciplinary authority. His explanation was found to be unsatisfactory. The order of dismissal from service dated August 14, 1986 was passed against him. The plaintiff challenged the order of suspension, the enquiry report and the order of dismissal from service on the ground that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by Shri R.P.Dubey, Under Secretary, Health Department, who asked the plaintiff to make a confessional statement and his statement was recorded under undue influence. The plaintiff retracted from his earlier statement. The plaintiff was not given proper opportunity to defend himself during the course of regular enquiry and he was not allowed to cross-examine the departmental witnesses.

(3.) The allegations made by the plaintiff were denied by the defendant-respondent. It was alleged that the enquiry was fair and that proper opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to Cross-examine the witnesses. The plaintiff was allowed to produce evidence in defence. On receipt of the enquiry report, show cause notice was given to the plaintiff as to why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. He filed reply thereto and he was given personal hearing by the disciplinary authority. His explanation was not found satisfactory. After considering the entire material, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal from service.