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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. Petitioner was working on the post of the driver when he was sent from Lucknow to Bangaluru by truck along with Sri V.K. Saxena, Junior Aircraft Mechanic, and Sri Harish Chandra @ Munna, Cleaner to bring spare parts of a helicopter. The allegations are that on 06.06.1994, they illegally loaded the truck with some teak wood, for which they were arrested in District Adilabad, State of Andhra Pradesh. A criminal case was lodged against them before the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Boath, District Adilabad, State of Andhra Pradesh. On 18.06.1994, the petitioner along with the junior aircraft mechanic and the cleaner was suspended. All three persons were charge-sheeted in a departmental enquiry and they also submitted their reply. The enquiry officer called all the three delinquent employees in person and they again submitted their written explanations. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.11.1994. On 04.08.1995 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Thus petitioner filed a writ petition No.4527 (S/S) of 1995 against his dismissal order dated 04.08.1995. During the pendency of the said writ petition, by order dated 12.02.1996, the suspension of both the junior aircraft mechanic and the cleaner were withdrawn and they were permitted to join duties. However, the order conditioned, that, in case they were found guilty in the criminal case they would be dismissed. The trial court by its judgment-dated 04.07.1996 acquitted both the junior aircraft mechanic and the cleaner but convicted the petitioner. As a consequence, both, the junior aircraft mechanic and the cleaner were permitted to continue in their services with all benefits. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court. By its judgment dated 30.04.1998, the Sessions Judge, Adilabad allowed the appeal of the petitioner and acquitted him also in the criminal case. The Writ Petition No.4527 (S/S) of 1995 filed by the petitioner against his dismissal was still pending. On 19.09.2011, the same was taken up and the High Court after hearing all the parties concerned, taking into consideration the fact that as a consequence of their acquittal in the criminal case the other two delinquent employees involved along with the petitioner were exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, permitted the petitioner also to approach the opposite party No.2, Director, Civil Aviation, U.P. for similar relief, as he also now stood acquitted in the said criminal case. The petitioner moved such a representation on 26.09.2011, which was rejected by the Director, Civil Aviation (Maintenance, Security and General Administration Unit), Lucknow Airport, by his order-dated 30.12.2011. Hence, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging, both, the order dated 30.12.2011 whereby his representation is rejected as well as his earlier dismissal order dated 04.08.1995.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner raises two submissions before the Court. The first, that, since the other two persons also involved in the incident were reinstated in service on their acquittal in the criminal case, hence petitioner is also entitled to the same relief on parity. Second, on merits, the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is illegal as no witness was called or appeared for the department to prove any of the allegations and/or documents against the petitioner. The procedure prescribed for the departmental enquiry was not followed. Only an explanation was taken from the petitioner based on which the enquiry officer submitted his report and the punishment order was passed. In his explanation, the petitioner had denied any wrongdoing on his part and, therefore, the report submitted by the enquiry officer, bereft of any evidence on part of the department, cannot stand.

4. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Sr