Back
2006 Supreme(All) 683
[2006(3) ADJ 572 (All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : V.M. SAHAI AND SABHAJEET YADAV, JJ.
SHIV SHANKER SAXENA .......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44002 of 2005,
decided on 3rd March, 2006)
Counsel :
T.P. Singh and Siddharth Singh for the Petitioner; Sheo Nath Singh, Addl. C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Dismissal—Of petitioner, an Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer—Principles of natural justice—Violation of—Issue of charge-sheet, on account of certain irregularities—Placed under suspension pending disciplinary inquiry against him—Various documents mentioned in charge-sheet, to be relied upon by Disciplinary Inquiry—Application moved by petitioner, for supply of certain documents, but was rejected by Inquiry Officer—However, a show-cause notice was issued to him—Of which he submitted reply—But without considering his reply, he was removed from service—Hence, writ petition—Whole disciplinary proceedings, after reply of charge-sheet, being contrary to provisions of rules of disciplinary inquiry, inasmuch principles of natural justice are violated, in view of Article 311(2) of Constitution, and vitiated under law—Therefore, Inquiry report, inasmuch impugned order, passed by Disciplinary Authority, acting upon such Inquiry Report was quashed—And petitioner entitled to be reinstated in service, but only for limited purpose of holding fresh disciplinary inquiry de novo against him, after stage of reply of charge-sheet—Respondents are at liberty to proceed with Disciplinary Inquiry in accordance with provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999—Therefore, writ petition allowed. [U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999—Rules 7 and 8—Constitution of India—Article 311(2)].
[Paras 16, 19, 20, 23 and 24]
By the Court—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) whereby his services were dispensed with by disciplinary measure, while he was working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer. It appears that while working as Incharge District Panchayat Raj Officer, on account of certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension on 7.8.2004 pending disciplinary inquiry against him. In pursuance thereof a charge-sheet dated 6/7.8.2004 containing as many as six charges was served upon him. In the aforesaid charge-sheet in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, various documents were mentioned to be relied upon in disciplinary inquiry to be held against the petitioner. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner moved an application on 10.9.2004 (Annexure-12 of the writ petition) praying for the copy of certain documents to reply the charge-sheet, but the aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected by the Inquiry Officer on 16.9.2004 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) on the ground that the documents sought to be relied upon against the petitioner in disciplinary inquiry has already been supplied to him along with the charge-sheet dated 6/7.8.2004, which had already been served upon him on 28.8.2004. However, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 25.9.2004 (Annexure-14 of the writ petition). Since then it is alleged in para 30 of the writ petition that till 23.12.2004 the petitioner did not hear anything about the progress of disciplinary-inquiry to be held against him. However, to his utter surprise he was served with a letter dated 23.12.2004 purported to be a show cause notice issued and served upon the petitioner along with the inquiry report dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure-15 of the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.1.2005 (Annexure-17 of the writ petition) but without considering the aforesaid reply of show cause notice in correct perspective the impugned order dated 13.5.2005 has been passed removing the petitioner from services hence this petition.
2. In justification of the impugned action taken against the petitioner the respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit, the reference of which shall be given hereinafter. After exchange of counter affidavit and Rejoinder affidavit the case was heard for final disposal on merits with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Singh for the petitioner and Sri Sheo Nath Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s services has been dispensed with by way of disciplinary measure without holding any full-fledged disciplinary inquiry against him in utter violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as relevant rules for holding disciplinary inquiry, thus the whole disciplinary proceeding is vitiated under law and liable to be quashed. While elaborating his argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the assertions made in para 30 and 31 of the writ petition after reply of the charge-sheet the petitioner was neither communicated any date or place of inquiry to be conducted against him nor in fact any inquiry has been held against him rather the Inquiry Officer has prepared the inquiry report behind the back of petitioner wherein it transpires that the charges No. 1, 2 and 3 were shown to have been proved while charge No. 4 and 5 were shown to have been partly proved and charge No. 6 was shown as not proved and has straightway submitted his report to Disciplinary Authority, who thereupon issued a show cause notice to the petitioner but inspite of the reply of the aforesaid show cause notice the Disciplinary Authority without considering it in corre
