Proper service of charge-sheet and informing the employee of the charges before dismissal is essential to adhere to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and ensure fair disciplinary proceedings.

1. This petitioner has been filed for seeking following relief:-

"In view of the facts stated in para 4 and grounds taken in para 5 of the petition, it is prayed that:-

(i) The impugned punishment order of removal dated 24.1.2009 of the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Door Sanchar) Police Headquarters Dehradun may be quashed along with the impugned Appellate order dated 9.9.2009 and Revisional order dated 25.9.2010.

(ii) The petitioner may be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits to which he had been entitled had he not been removed from service."

2. Petitioner, an employee of the Police Department of the State of Uttarakhand working as Head Radio Operator has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.1.2009. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Range and subsequently he preferred a revision petition before the Additional Director General of Police, Uttarakhand at Dehradun. His appeal and revision petition were also rejected vide orders dated 9.9.2009 and 25.9.2010 respectively.

3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Sri Jugal Tiwari contended that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, but it was never served to him as required under law. He further contended that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the previous conduct of the petitioner without giving due notice to the petitioner.

5. Ld. P.O. appearing on behalf of State contended that the charge-sheet was served to the petitioner by the special messenger, who refused to take the said charge-sheet. Thereafter the enquiry officer sent it again to his residence to affix the copy of the charge-sheet at his residence. The said copy was affixed at the door of his residence after the refusal of the petitioner to take the copy of the charge-sheet. Thereafter, again the enquiry officer sent the copy of the charge-sheet to his permanent residence, where it was served upon his father and as such there is sufficient service upon the petitioner. Ld. P.O. further contended that the impugned order has wrongly mentioned the date of the charge-sheet as 22.10.2008 instead of 8.7.2008, he has categorically made this averment in Para 10 of his written statement.

6. From the perusal of the enquiry report it is evident that initially the copy of the charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner on 18.9.2008 and the said charge-sheet could not be served upon the petitioner as the petitioner refused to take the same. After receipt of the said report, the enquiry officer again sent the copy of charge-sheet on 25.9.2008 to the petitioner for its service and it was directed that in case the petitioner refuses to take the same, the said charge-sheet may be affixed at the door of his house. The special messenger, sent for the same, tendered the copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to take the charge-sheet and the copy of the charge-sheet was affixed at the door of the house of the petitioner in presence of the witnesses. After the receipt of the said report the enquiry officer again sent a special messenger to serve the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, but the petitioner was not available at his residence and the said charge-sheet was tendered to his father who received the same. It is apparent from the perusal of the enquiry report that the charge-sheet, which was sent on 18.9.2008 & 25.9.2008 were not found sufficient service upon the petitioner, so it was sent again to the petitioner to his permanent address at Bijnor which was received by his father. The enquiry report further reveals that on 3.10.2008 also, a copy of the charge-sheet was sent through registered post, which was received back to the office on 18.10.2008 with the endorsement that the petitioner was not available at his residence and he has gone outside his residence, 4.10.2008, 6.10.2008 and 7.10.2008. Thereafter, again on 22.10.2008 a spec