IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural rules and principles of natural justice, ensuring the charged employee has the opportunity to defend themselves.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.-Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer :

''Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3.

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authority concern to pay the subsistence allowances to the petitioner for his suspension period i.e. 14.10.2022 to 30.12.2023.''

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a 'Dresser' in Animal Husbandary Department on 28.7.2004 and subsequently, promoted on the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari' on 3.1.2017. After 18 years of service, one stranger made a compliant against the petitioner with regard to the qualification and certificates of High School submitted by the petitioner at the time of his joining. On the basis of the alleged compliant, a preliminary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended on 14.10.2022 and the charge-sheet has been served on 3.4.2023 upon the petitioner. The petitioner was also served second charge-sheet on 5.8.2023 and thereafter the petitioner was terminated from services on 30.12.2023 by the respondent No. 3/Additional Director II, Animal Husbandry Department Meerut Mandal Meerut.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on the basis of the preliminary inquiry, the service of the permanent Government Employee cannot be terminated and while terminating the services of the petitioner, the procedure prescribed under U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred as ''Rules 1999'') were not followed. It is argued that no oral evidence has been taken produced and the petitioner has neither given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness nor he was permitted to produce his defence, although an ex parte enquiry was initiated, the Inquiry Officer is duty bound to record the evidence and follow all the procedure prescribed under the Rules. It is argued that the documents relied upon by the inquiry Officer was never supplied to the petitioner nor the list of the witnesses has been given to the petitioner. It is argued that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. It is argued that the respondents are duty bound to follow the provisions of Rules, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Rules, 1999 in exercise of powers conferred by the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the aforesaid order is arbitrary and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Rules, 1999, and prays that the same be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance during the suspension period, i.e., 14.10.2022 to 30.12.2023.

5. On the other hand learned Standing counsel argued that a complete procedure as prescribed under the Rules, 1999 was complied with by the respondents before passing the order of termination, hence the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. When a query raised by this Court that while passing the impugned order, the procedure prescribed under Rule 7(iv) and 7(x) of the Rules, 1999 has been complied by the authorities or not. it is argued by learned Standing counsel that the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid rules were not followed by the authorities but the order was passed after taking legal opinion from the District Government counsel.

7. In order to examine the issue as to whether the procedure prescribed under the Rules for holding departmental inquiry in respect of imposition of major penalty have been followed or not, it is necessary to reproduce Rules 7,8 and 9 of the Rules, 1999, which read as follows:

''7. Procedure for imposing major penalties.-Before imposing any major penalty on a Government Servant, an inquiry shall