The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice for compulsory retirement must adhere to the prescribed procedure for departmental enquiry, principles of natural justice, and statutory provisions.

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.;—

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the final show cause notice dated 30.6.2011 issued by the Chairman, Board of Governors, Food Craft Institute, Aligarh, [in short referred to as the 'Institute'], whereby the petitioner was required to show cause within a period of fifteen days as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service of the Institute with immediate effect and further requiring him to file his written submission before the Chairman of Board of Governors.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the Institute which was established in the 1984 was registered as Societies Registration Act, 1860. Since 1984, the Institute was fully funded by the Central Government. However, in the year 1989, the financial liability of the Institute stood transferred to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. At present, the Institute is governed by the Department of Tourism, Government of Uttar Pradesh and right from its inception, the additional charge of Acting Principal was given to the Principal, University of Polytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University (respondent No.4).

4. According to the petitioner, he is a Senior Lecturer-cum-Senior Instructor at the Institute. On 3.6.2010, the petitioner was informed that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into some of the irregularities. Subsequently, on 13.7.2010, a charge-sheet was issued and served upon the petitioner containing six charges under the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, to which the petitioner submitted his comprehensive reply on 13.8.2010 denying therein the charges so levelled. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 30.6.2011 was served upon him on 4.7.2011, requiring him to show cause within a period of fifteen days as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from the services of Institute with immediate effect and for that purpose, he must file his written submissions before the Chairman of Board of Governors within the stipulated period. Hence the instant writ petition.

5. Challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 30.6.2011, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision with regard to compulsorily retiring the petitioner is premeditated as from the issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner, his guilt was premeditated by the respondents, which is evident from the bare perusal of the version of the charge-sheet. He submits that the compulsory retirement cannot be used, in lieu of departmental proceedings, as is being done in the instant case.

6. Elaborating her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner, no valid enquiry was ever done prior to issuance of the impugned show cause notice. She submits that the impugned show cause notice was issued against him with mala fide intention at the behest of Sri Iqbal Ali, Acting Principal of the Institute (respondent No.4) inasmuch as right from the petitioner's appointment, he harassed him, on both small and big issues, resulting in perpetual mental agony for the petitioner. He submits that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 as Acting Principal of the Institute, the petitioner had unblemished career and never had any problems.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issuance of impugned show cause notice dated 30.6.2011 is violative of statutory provisions contained in Rule 10 read with Rule 11 and Rule 55 of the U.P. Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been accorded to the petitioner; the procedure mandated for a departmental enquiry has not been followed; no procedure has been followed; no document has been brought on record in accordance with law; no witnesses have been examined; and no enquiry repor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document