JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 20.06.2018 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (Class III) on 20.12.2007 by the District Programme Coordinator/Chief Development Officer, Sitapur on contract basis for a period of one year. The appointment of the petitioner was renewed from time to time.

4. It has been further stated that in the year 2018, certain complaints were made against the petitioner and a preliminary inquiry was also conducted and the report was submitted by a Committee of three persons including Block Development Officer, Assistant Engineer DRDO and Dy. Labour commissioner (Labour and Employment ), Sitapur where 04 of the 07 allegations levelled in the complaint were found to be prime facie correct and hence a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 18.04.2018 containing 08 charges. The petitioner duly replied to the said charges on 30.04.2018 and subsequently by means of order dated 20.06.2018 which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the punishment order was passed.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 would indicate that neither the charge-sheet submitted by the department was taken in account nor the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered while passing of the impugned order. It is further noticed that no proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the charge-sheet and neither any date, time and place was fixed before passing of the impugned order and accordingly it is clear from the bare perusal of the impugned order that neither was the procedure followed nor any was proper opportunity given to the petitioner to defend himself from the charges levelled against him.The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking.

6. Further surprising aspect is that during the pendency of the present disciplinary proceedings yet another show case notice was given to the petitioner on 26.04.2018 by the Dy. Labour commissioner (Labour and Employment), Sitapur again levelled certain allegations against the petitioner and this time seeking to saddle with the the financial loss caused to the department. Surprisingly, once the chargesheet has been given to the petitioner containing 08 charges including the charges which was mentioned in the show cause notice, there is no reason as to why a further show cause notice would not have been given to the petitioner on the same basis seeking a response from him.

7. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned order and submitted that petitioner has been provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the termination of services of the petitioner has been carried out after giving him a charge-sheet and after due inquiry.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. At the very outset, it is noticed that the procedure prescribed has been violated at every level while conducting the inquiry against the petitioner. Though a detail charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 18.04.2018 levelling 08 charges and thereafter the petitioner has responded to the 08 charges denying all the charges levelled against him but no date, time and place was fixed by the Inquiry Officer before passing final order.

10. The impugned order dated 20.06.2018 would indicate that entire proceedings has been culminated in a very hurried manner without adequate consideration of any of the charges. Neither reply of the petitioner has been considered and merely by reiterating the allegation against the petitioner, he has been held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer was under a duty to record a finding on each of the