2020 Supreme(All) 245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
Chandra Kumar Misra - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue And Ors. - Respondent
Service single no. 14092 of 2018
Decided On : 06-01-2020

Headnote:

Petitioner was posted as Lekhpal was suspended –Charge sheet issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, was served upon him – Upon receiving charge sheet, petitioner prayed for time for submitting his reply – Enquiry office who was appointed by Sub Divisional Officer, had lodged First Information Report against petitioner, he submitted application to Sub Divisional Magistrate with request that enquiry officer, be changed –Application was filed by petitioner –In pursuance of earlier application filed by petitioner for extension of time, extended time to file reply to charge sheet –Letter never reached petitioner and, therefore, while petitioner was still waiting for extension of time to submit his reply and also for change of enquiry officer, enquiry officer completed enquiry and submitted his report – Based on enquiry report, punishing authority, that is, Sub Divisional Magistrate, in his turn passed order of dismissal – Thereafter, petitioner approached High Court by means of writ petition which was disposed of by order with direction that Appellate Authority was to decide appeal within period of one month from passing of order of High Court – When Appellate Court dismissed appeal, the instant writ petition was filed – Held, Court finds that charge sheet was extremely vague – No Rule had been mentioned which had been relied upon to punish petitioner –Only allegation in charge sheet appears to be that since petitioner was politically active person he was to be punished – When charges did not show as to which land was not allotted by petitioner and as to which welfare programme was not followed properly by petitioner there could not have been any definite reply –When petitioner was throughout asking for change of enquiry officer specially when he had himself lodged first information report against petitioner then enquiry officer should not have been trusted with life of petitioner – If petitioner did not appear then it was duty of enquiry officer to have come to definite conclusion as to whether petitioner was guilty and was liable to be punished – Enquiry officer should have found out as to whether unrebutted evidence was also conclusively proved or not – He should have seen whether charges on basis of unrebutted charges were proved sufficiently or not, to punish petitioner – Court finds that enquiry report and show cause regarding punishment were also not served upon petitioner – Court finds that petitioner was illegally kept out of service on account of wrong orders having been passed, petitioner be given benefit of continuity of service and he be also given his full back wages – Orders passed by District Magistrate quashed – Writ petition Allowed. (Paras 5 to 8)

Facts of Case:

Petitioner was posted as Lekhpal was suspended – Charge sheet issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, was served upon him – Upon receiving charge sheet, petitioner prayed for time for submitting his reply – Enquiry office who was appointed by Sub Divisional Officer, had lodged First Information Report against petitioner, he submitted application to Sub Divisional Magistrate with request that enquiry officer, be changed –Application was filed by petitioner –In pursuance of earlier application filed by petitioner for extension of time, extended time to file reply to charge sheet – Letter never reached petitioner and, therefore, while petitioner was still waiting for extension of time to submit his reply and also for change of enquiry officer, enquiry officer completed enquiry and submitted his report – Based on enquiry report, punishing authority, that is, Sub Divisional Magistrate, in his turn passed order of dismissal – Thereafter, petitioner approached High Court by means of writ petition which was disposed of by order with direction that Appellate Authority was to decide appeal within period of one month from passing of order of High Court – When Appellate Court dismissed appeal, the instant writ petition was filed.

Findings of Court:

Court finds that charge sheet was extremely vague – No Rule had been mentioned which had been relied upon to punish petitioner –Only allegation in charge sheet appears to be that since petitioner was politically active person he was to be punished – When charges did not show as to which land was not allotted by petitioner and as to which welfare programme was not followed properly by petitioner there could not have been any definite reply –When petitioner was throughout asking for change of enquiry officer specially when he had himself lodged first information report against petitioner then enquiry officer should not have been trusted with life of petitioner – If petitioner did not appear then it was duty of enquiry officer to have come to definite conclusion as to whether petitioner was guilty and was liable to be punished –Enquiry officer should have found out as to whether unrebutted evidence was also conclusively proved or not – He should have seen whether charges on basis of unrebutted charges were proved sufficiently or not, to punish petitioner – Court finds that enquiry report and show cause regarding punishment were also not served upon petitioner – Court finds that petitioner was illegally kept out of service on account of wrong orders having been passed, petitioner be given benefit of continuity of service and he be also given his full back wages. – Orders passed by S.D.M. District and passed by District Magistrate, are quashed.

Result: Writ petition Allowed