The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including providing a fair opportunity for the charged employee to defend themselves and cross-examine witnesses.

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Singh, Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

2. Ram Kumar, who is said to be working as Assistant/In-charge Fertilizer Sale Centre, Laharapur, District Sitapur feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 17.8.2000 passed by the Managing Director/Secretary, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd as also the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal, has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily on the ground that order of dismissal is based on the defective ex-parte inquiry which was conducted in total disregard of the principles of natural justice and he was not Center In-charge being a class IV employee.

3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was a confirmed class IV employee of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation and was working on the post of Chowkidar/Peon at the time of passing of order of dismissal. Though the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Centre In-charge, but was asked by the higher authorities, with an oblique motive, to work as In-charge of the Centre. While discharging duties, he was served with a charge-sheet for misappropriation of funds for the period 91-95 though during this period one Veer Mahanedra Singh, was posted as the Center In-charge and was entrusted to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner.

4. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner made application not only to the Inquiry Officer but to other higher authorities, requesting therein to supply him relevant documents such as cash-book prepared by the petitioner and vouchers but without furnishing the copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte with the inquiry and submitted its report with a per-determined mind to harm the petitioner. After submission of the report by the Inquiry Officer, the Regional Manager issued a letter to the petitioner on 24.6.2000 requiring the petitioner to submit his reply to show cause notice to which petitioner tendered his reply mentioning therein that copies of duplicate cash book and other documents demanded by him have not been supplied causing serious prejudice and harm to the petitioner. However, the appointing authority without considering the reply, passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 17.8.2000.

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman, U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. It has been vehmenelty argued that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority goes to show that the petitioner is not responsible for the financial irregularities, which have been committed by superior authorities but in a cursory manner, has rejected the appeal.

6. To substantiate his arguments that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not only stale but the inquiry was initiated with a pre-determined mind to harm the petitioner and that the departmental inquiry was conducted in breach of the provisions of natural justice, reliance has been placed on Shafat Ullah v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi 2002 (20) LCD 733, Radhu Kant Khara v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610, Avadhesh Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and others [2004 (22) LCD 1], Ambika Prasad Srivastava v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow 2004 (22) LCD 770, M.M. Sidduqui v. State of U.P. and others [2015 (33) LCD 836]; The C/M Jawwad Ali Shah Imambara Girls P.G. College and another v. State of U.P. and others [2015 (33) LCD 2155] and Girish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (34) LCD 3275.

7. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, it has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner had committed certain serious irregularities while di