JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2001, the Petitioner was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings against him. A Departmental enquiry was conducted and Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.07.2002. Challenging the said dismissal order, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.4274 of 2002 in which a specific stand was taken by the Petitioner that enquiry was not done in accordance with law and principles of natural justice was not followed. It is also submitted that no date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the impugned order could not survive. The writ petition was heard and decided and the Court passed order on 12.08.2008. The impugned order of dismissal was quashed. However, it was open for the respondents to proceed for departmental proceedings afresh.

3. The State filed Special Appeal No.63 of 2009 challenging the order dated 12.08.2008 which was disposed of with slight modification that State will complete departmental enquiry within four months. An enquiry was completed on 19.01.2011 and impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 06.03.2013 and major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner fixing his salary to the lowest grade which is under challenge.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition has submitted that Enquiry Officer did not fixed any date, time and place while proceeding in the enquiry and no oral examination was done. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry, ex-parte, only on the basis of reply of the Petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned order cannot survive in the eyes of law, which is a settled law and the same is violated under U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinater referred to as ‘Rules’). In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(i). Abdul Salam vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (29) LCD 832 ;

(ii). Avadhesh Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P. and others 2004 (22) LCD 1 ;

(iii). Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Secretary and anor v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others in Civil Appeal No.2265 of 2011 ;

(iv). United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee in Civil Appeal No.8258 of 2009 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 109.

(v). In Abdul Salam (Supra), the court in Para Nos. 16 to 19 and 24 to 27 has held as under :

“16. Before coming to any conclusion, it would be relevant to mention the legal position with regard to the conduction of the departmental enquiry and award of punishment to a delinquent employee. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has pronounced that in the matter of enquiry for awarding major punishment, no short-cut is permissible. The charge-sheet has to be furnished to the delinquent to apprise him of the charges, which should be specific along with the evidence, both oral and documentary, which the department intends to rely for upholding the charges. In case after service of charge-sheet, the delinquent needs any documents or copy thereof, such prayer has to be considered by the enquiry officer and the documents which are found relevant for enquiry are to be supplied to the delinquent. In case copies of any such document can not be supplied for any valid reason, free access has to be afforded to the delinquent for making inspection of such records. After this stage, the reply is to be submitted by the delinquent within the given time schedule and the enquiry is to proceed, fixing the date, time and place calling the delinquent.

17. Normally, the evidence by the department is required to be led first to prove the charges wherein the delinquent is also allowed to participate, who can crossexamine the witnesses, with opportunity of adducing the evidence either in rebuttal or for disprovin