Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—

Heard Sri Rajeev Singh, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sampurnanand, learned counsel for Nagar Palika Parishad, Pratapgarh.

The petitioner, who was regularly appointed Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela-Pratapgarh, by means of the instant writ petition assails the order dated 29.05.2003 whereby her services have been terminated and also the order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad whereby appeal preferred by her against the order dated 29.05.2003 was rejected.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Bela-Pratapgarh which has been annexed as Annenxure No.1 to the writ petition, though recites that it is an order terminating the services of the petitioner, however, since the petitioner was regularly appointed Safai Karamchari with the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad and the impugned order, whereby her relationship with her employer has been severed, was passed after issuance of the charge-sheet and holding some kind of domestic enquiry, hence, in fact, it is an order of dismissal of services of the petitioner.

Assailing the impugned order dated 29.05.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order 15.04.2004 passed by the appellate authority on the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Singh has submitted that no charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, that no enquiry was held against the petitioner, that no date, time and place for holding oral enquiry was ever either fixed or intimated to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal, that the impugned orders do not discuss the evidence available on record and also do not disclose the reason for arriving at the conclusion regarding the charges against the petitioner being proved and hence, the impugned orders are absolutely unlawful.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the petitioner refused to receive the charge-sheet and she did not participate in the enquiry, it was legally incumbent upon the authorities of Nagar Palika Parishad to have held the enquiry ex-parte i.e. in absence of the petitioner and the charges still ought to have been proved. He states that the impugned order of dismissal of services of the petitioner does not even discuss the evidence available on record adduced by the employer and further that it does not assign any reason for arriving at the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. In such a view, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the impugned order of dismissal of service of the petitioner can not be permitted to be sustained.

It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the appellate authority has not looked into the record of the departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner and has not discussed and evaluated the evidence available on the said record. He further states that the appellate authority has also failed to appreciate the legal position that even in case of an ex-parte enquiry, it is incumbent upon on the employer to hold an enquiry and prove charges and further that absence thereof makes the impugned appellate order dated 15.04.2004 bad in law.

In support of his contention leaned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment reported in 2003 (21) LCD 610, Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., wherein it has, inter alia, been held that any disciplinary proceedings held in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be permitted to be legally sustained. On the basis of said judgement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after service of charge-sheet to the delinquent employee, an oral enquiry is a must; whether the employee requests for it or not and as such a notice should be issued to the delinquent employee intimating him date, time and pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document