Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the requirement for oral evidence. Failure to comply renders the proceedings and resulting punishment invalid.

JUDGMENT :

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the punishment order of removal from service dated 02.08.1995 from the post of Collection Amin, as well as the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the representations of the petitioner dated 20.03.2002 and 18.03.2003 seeking re-employment in service were rejected.

3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Collection Amin in the year 1988 in Tehsil Dhauraha, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioner was charge- sheeted and placed under suspension vide order dated 19.01.1994 on three charges; firstly, that during the period from 01.11.1993 to 31.12.1993, he made a recovery of only Rs.1,328/- against the outstanding main dues of Rs.46,436/- and a recovery of only Rs.495/- against miscellaneous dues amounting to Rs.2,45,565/-, which was much below the prescribed norms; secondly, that he failed to prepare the list of defaulters in respect of development tax dues amounting to Rs.6,446/- in his assigned area along with the statement of outstanding amounts; and thirdly, that he did not remain present on the fixed dates for filing of returns. In the meantime, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and he was arrested by the police on 01.02.1994 and was later released on bail in April 1994.

4. The charge-sheet dated 19.01.1994 was served upon the petitioner on 01.02.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charges vide letter dated 09.04.1994 and also filed Writ Petition No. 1941 (S/S) of 1994 challenging the order of suspension. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.04.1994, whereby a timeline was fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, failing which it was directed that the suspension order would stand revoked. The petitioner served a copy of the order dated 26.04.1994 passed in the aforesaid writ petition upon the authorities vide letter dated 06.05.1994.

5. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charges, submitted an enquiry report dated 20.09.1994. In the meantime, an additional charge-sheet dated 27.05.1994, containing four additional charges, was also issued to the petitioner and was served upon him by the District Magistrate, Kheri. Charge nos. 4 and 5 pertained to allegations of misappropriation of amounts of Rs. 4,181/- and Rs. 1,360/- respectively; Charge no. 6 related to delay on the part of the petitioner in depositing an amount of Rs. 45/- in the Sub-Treasury; and Charge no. 7 alleged that during the period of his suspension, the petitioner failed to hand over the documents in his possession to any other officer or employee, as a result whereof the department faced difficulty in effecting recovery of the said amounts from the concerned persons. In support of the aforesaid charges, reliance was placed upon the report of the Naib Tahsildar, Firozabad dated 06.05.1994 and the report of the Tahsildar, Dhauraha dated 17.05.1994 along with the related records, and the petitioner was directed to submit his written reply to the said charges on or before 08.06.1994.

6. In relation to the aforesaid additional charges, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Kheri dated 06.06.1994, stating therein that he had not been supplied with the report of the Naib Tahsildar, Firozabad dated 06.05.1994, the re