Point of Law: An inquiry officer acting in a quasi- judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Ms. Monika Rani, the then Collector, Chitrakoot, dated 03.02.2017, dismissing the petitioner from Government service. It has further been ordered that a sum of Rs.86,74,600/-held embezzled by the petitioner be recovered from him.

2. The petitioner was a Deputy Cashier ¼mi jksdfM+;k½, posted at the Sub-Treasury Mau, District Chitrakoot. Shorn of details, that are unnecessary to determine the short point that arises for consideration here, the petitioner was charge sheeted through two separate charge sheets dated 06.04.2016 and 26.05.2016, on the foundation of which, disciplinary proceedings were drawn against him. The substance of the charges against the petitioner is that he had embezzled Government moneys in the sum of Rs.86,74,600/-by manipulating figures in the deposit challans, relating to sums of money, collected at the Treasury and deposited by him at the Allahabad Bank, Branch Mau, District Chitrakoot on 69 days between 08.04.2015 to 06.02.2016.

3. Parties have exchanged affidavits, whereafter this petition was formally admitted to hearing on 01.12.2020. It was heard on that date and thereafter, adjourned on a few instances. Parties have concluded their submissions today.

4. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, along with Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Mr. Shree Prakash Singh and Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

5. No doubt, the charges against the petitioner are serious, but Mr. Arvind Srivastava says that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. During hearing, he has canvassed a number of points to assail the entire disciplinary proceedings, including those relating to non-supply of documents, that have been produced against him, apart from personal bias that he has alleged against Kamlesh Kumar, the Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Chitrakoot.

6. This Court is not minded to examine the other contentions raised by Mr. Srivastava, which may not be treated to be decided either way by this judgment, except the one that this Court proceeds to consider now. Mr. Srivastava submits that during the course of the departmental inquiry, as a part of the disciplinary proceedings, no date, time or place for holding the inquiry was determined nor any such date, time or place was intimated to the petitioner. He further submits that the respondents have not proved the charges before the Inquiry Officer by examining witnesses in support of the same. No oral evidence has been recorded on behalf of the establishment. The Inquiry Officer has proceeded to evaluate papers before him, without any evidence being led by the establishment to prove the charges. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of an evaluation of documents on record done of his own, has held the charges proved. This, according to Mr. Srivastava, is a manifest illegality, which vitiates the inquiry report and the consequential order of dismissal from service founded on it.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, in particular, invited the Court’s attention to paragraph no.43 of the writ petition, where it is averred to the following effect:

“43. That it is pertinent to state here that nothing has been done pursuant to the said letter dated 22.11.2016 by the Enquiry Officer. Neither any alleged charge sheet, material evidence or permission to cross examine the alleged witnesses has been provided nor any date or time or place has been disclosed/ fixed by the Inquiry Officer for hearing of the petitioner in the alleged departmental enquiry being conducted against him, and thus the said act and conduct of the inquiry officer not only violates the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the Government Order dated 22.4.2015 but also violates the Principles of Natural Justice of law.”

8. Paragraph no.43 of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph no.44 of the coun