Back
2000 Supreme(All) 587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Amarbir Singh Gill and Kamal Kishore, JJ.
BABU LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petition 3090 (S/s) Of 1991
Decided On : 04/21/2000
ASHOK NIGAM
The court emphasized the importance of conducting a proper enquiry, complying with service rules, and providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as mandated by the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 and the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Service - U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 - Rule 31, Rule 32 - The court quashed the dismissal order and granted the petitioner all consequential benefits as no proper enquiry was conducted and the impugned order did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the service rules and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Officer, was suspended and later dismissed from service based on allegations of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on grounds of lack of proper enquiry, non-supply of documents, and non-compliance with service rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no proper enquiry was conducted, the petitioner's defense was prejudiced due to non-supply of the enquiry report, and the impugned order did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the service rules and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court.
Issues: Lack of proper enquiry, non-supply of documents, non-compliance with service rules, and legal foundation of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order of dismissal was quashed as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the service rules and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and granted the petitioner all consequential benefits as if no such order was passed against him.
( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th May, 1991 as contained in Anncxure-1 of his dismissal from service.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was working as Executive Officer, Municipal Board, sitapur and became member of U. P. Palika Centralised Services in the year 1966. He was placed under suspension by Secretary, Nagar Vikas, U. P. Government, Lucknow, opposite party No. 1 by an order dated 8th January, 1986 (Annexure-2) on the allegation that he had submitted a note in respect of a tender for supply of bitumen while posted at Nagar Palika, Jaunpur. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 341 of 1996 before this Court and by interim order, the suspension order was stayed. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a charge- sheet but no enquiry was conducted nor any witness was examined in the enquiry against him. Thereafter another charge-sheet dated 27th February, 1990 was served on the petitioner without accompanying any document referred to in the charge-sheet. The petitioner had to file another Writ Petition No. 275 of 1990 which was disposed of finally on 20th September, 1990 by an order (Annexure-9)wherein this Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that in case the enquiry is not completed within three months, the suspension order shall stand revoked. The opposite parties could not complete the enquiry within the stipulated time and the petitioner was reinstated by an order dated 4th December, 1990 (Annexure-10 ). The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner was never supplied the documents referred to in the charge-sheet nor any further enquiry was conducted. However, the opposite parties by the impugned order dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenges his dismissal order on the grounds that he was not supplied the documents referred to in the charge-sheet nor, he was supplied the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer nor the same was produced by the opposite parties in Court. No second opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment was served on the petitioner as per service rules. Besides, the impugned order is non-speaking order without application of mind as it refers only to the charges having been found proved by the enquiry Officers report. It does not refer to the pleas of the petitioner.
( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1 it has been asserted that the petitioner was served with two separate chatge-sheets and two separate Enquiry Officers were appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against him and the reply to the charge-sheet was duly considered and the petitioner participated in the enquiry and possible reasonable opportunity was afforded to him. The petitioner was allowed to inspect the records. In paragrpah 7 of the counter-affidavit it is asserted that enquiry report submitted by two different Enquiry Officers was considered by competent authority along with record and competent authority had taken decision to revert the petitioner but no order of reversion was issued to the petitioner and in paragraph 8 it is submitted that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer pertain to posting of the petitioner at Sitapur has been considered by the Enquiry Officer including the report relating to his posting at Jaunpur and the competent authority proposed the punishment of dismissal from service.
( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner belonged to U. P. Nagar Palika Centralised Service and was governed by U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner mainly are on legal issues. The first contention being that no enquiry of any kind was conducted in this case as after serving the charge-sheet, the petitioner was never asked to appear or participate in the enquiry procee
