IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the right to a fair hearing and the provision of all relevant evidence to a charged employee are fundamental to lawful disciplinary proceedings, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, for Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi.

2. Under challenge is the impugned punishment order dated 24-08-2023 passed by the opposite party no. 1 and the charge no. 1 of the chargesheet dated 28-12-2021.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wage basis in Lucknow Development Authority on 01-01-1988 and thereafter, his services were regularized and he was transferred to Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi(hereinafter referred to as, 'VDA'). When the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer Enforcement (Nagwan Ward) surprisingly, on 21- 07-2021, inspection of various roads in Nagwan Ward was conducted by the Vice Chairman, VDA and allegedly, unauthorized building constructions were found in progress and thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22-07-2021, was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice, on 28-07-2021. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was instituted, wherein the charges were framed and the chargesheet dated 28-12-2021 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the chargesheet and the enquiry proceeding was concluded and the enquiry report was sent to the disciplinary authority, whereafter, issuing the show cause notice, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded and the final punishment order was passed on 24- 08-2023.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the chargesheet contains three charges and so far as the charge no. 1 is concerned, it finds mention that the same is framed on the basis of the show cause notice dated 22-07-2021, though the same was replied, but, the alleged noting dated 29-07-2021, has never been communicated to the petitioner, wherein, it is mentioned that the report with respect to the work of the petitioner is 'unsatisfactory'. He further argued that the Enquiry Officer, ignoring the request of the petitioner for furnishing the copy of the order dated 29-07-2021, proceeded in the matter and even the same has repeatedly been sought not only from the Enquiry Officer but, to the Disciplinary authority as well, though the same was never served upon the petitioner.

5. Adding his arguments, he submits that the petitioner has also taken specific plea in paragraph nos. 17 & 26 of the writ petition, which has not been controverted in specific terms, in the Counter Affidavits filed by VDA as well as by the State and therefore, it is an admitted fact that the order dated 29-07-2021, has never been served upon the petitioner, thus, the whole disciplinary proceeding including the chargesheet, vitiates in the eyes of law.

6. Further contended that the nature of the order is as such, which cannot be the basis of the charge no. 1 and even the same would be of no avail, if relied upon.

7. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the case reported in (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 515, Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, and has referred paragraph no. 31 of the abovesaid Judgment, which is quoted hereinunder :-

31. The conclusion reached by the Division Bench that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge had found that there was a defect in the manner in which the enquiry was held, and therefore there was no question of it recording a finding on merit to the effect that charges levelled against the appellant were not proved, is also not sustainable in law. It is always open for the Court in such a case, to examine the case on merits as well, and in case the court comes to the conclusion that there was in fact, no substance in the allegations, it may not permit the employer to hold a fresh enquiry. Such a course may be necessary to