The court does not act as a Court of appeal in departmental proceedings and considers the conduct of the appellant before and after the punishment order.

ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit, the appellant, who appears in person being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.7191 (S/S) of 2002 (Devendra Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his punishment order has been dismissed.

2. The appellant had challenged the order dated 04.11.2002 (correct date being 04.12.2002) by which the appellant was removed from service on the grounds of indiscipline, misbehaviour and use of abusive language against his superior.

3. A due enquiry was instituted wherein the charges against the appellant were duly found proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the appellant, who was also issued a show cause notice seeking his response to the findings of the enquiry officer which was also considered and thereafter Deputy Director of State Civil Aviation Department found that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were in consonance with the material available on record and duly corroborated by the evidence and considering the charges against the appellant including his previous conduct where he had indulged in several incidents of impudence and despite having been reprimanded and minor punishment having been imposed yet there was no improvement in his behaviour, thus, noticing the sensitivity required in the Department of Civil Aviation where discipline is a key ingredient and that being missing in the appellant, the punishment order removing the appellant from service was passed.

4. The appellant in person, while assailing the order passed by the writ Court, has primarily urged that the enquiry held by the Department against the appellant was motivated. False and fabricated documents were produced by the Department before the Enquiry Officer and also before the writ Court. The State Government and the Department has targeted the appellant and the order of removal has been passed though alleged incident dated 24.01.2002 was fabricated and even otherwise there was no such material by which the charge against the appellant was proved and he could not have been removed from service.

5. The appellant in person has also filed his written submissions which have been taken on record. From a perusal of the written submissions, filed by the appellant, it indicates that the allegations of mala-fides have been leveled against various departmental persons and superior officers including the counsel for the State contesting the proceedings before the writ Court apart from the ground of challenge to the departmental proceedings being arbitrary and in violation of settled norms.

6. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews and others, (2018) 10 SCC 804 and it has been stated that the proposition laid down in the said case is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. It is also stated that the State has made effort to punish the appellant for his honesty, who had uncovered the corruption in the Department which irked the senior officers as a result, the punishment order has been passed which is actuated by mala-fides, consequently the appeal and the writ petition deserves to be allowed after setting aside the order passed by the writ Court.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents while refuting the submissions has drawn attention of the Court to the counter affidavit indicating that in view of the incident of misbehavour and use of intemperate language by the appellant against his superior officer which occurred on 24.01.2002, the appellant was put under suspension on 30.01.2002 and an Enquiry Officer was duly appointed. The charge-sheet dated 02.02.2002 containing article of charges leveled against the appellant was served on him on 06.02.2002. The appellant was granted full opp