The dismissal of an employee is invalid if the enquiry does not adhere to procedural fairness, specifically failing to fix a date, time, and place for oral enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Shri Anwar Ashfaq, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.1 as well as Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 7.

2. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos.8 & 9.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the opposite party No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision dated 08.06.2018 and 17.07.2018 taken by the interim Committee Management of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Limited, Lucknow to dismiss the petitioner from service and recovery of Rs.7.55 lakhs from the service benefits/ assets of the petitioner, after summoning it in original from the opposite parties.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the enquiry report dated 14.05.2018, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of approval No.863/Mandal/Anu-1-92, dated 09.08.2018 passed by the opposite party No.6, as referred in the impugned order date 10.08.2018, after summoning in its original from the opposite parties.

(v) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on his post of Executive Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Nirman Sahkair Sangh Limited, Lucknow till the age of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2018 and pay him salary with all consequential service benefits including the ritiral benefits.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Manager, in General Cadre of U.P. Cooperative Processing Unit and Cold Storage Centralized Services with the approval of the Chairman of the Administrative Committee on ad-hoc basis on 18.05.1989.

5. The date of superannuation of the petitioner was 31.08.2018 but before the date of superannuation the opposite party No.3 i.e. the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajya Nirman Sahkari Sangh Limited, Lucknow passed the impugned dismissal order on 10.08.2018 with the further direction that a sum of Rs.7,55,000/- would be recovered from the petitioner from his post retiral dues.

6. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned punishment order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report wherein no date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer to conduct the oral enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioner, therefore, I am not considering the other facts of the issue in question. Further, instead of conducting the departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law the Enquiry Officer telephonically instructed the Project Engineer of Azamgarh Division to send the material and the Project Engineer vide his letter dated 05.10.2017 sent some material/ false report and on the basis of such report the Enquiry Officer held that the charge Nos. 1 and 2 are proved.

7. Attention has been drawn towards paras-54 & 55 of the writ petition, wherein the specific recital has been given to the effect that no date, time and place to conduct the oral enquiry has been fixed by the Enquiry Officer. For convenience, paras-54 & 55 of the writ petition read as under:-

“54. That it is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer had become party in the disciplinary proceedings as he instructed on telephone to the Project Engineer, Azamgarh Division to send the material and on the telephonic instructions, the Project Engineer vide his letter dated 05.10.2017 sent the material/ false report on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer has held the charges No.1 and 2 proved. This action of the Enquiry Officer is unknown to settled principl