The dismissal of an employee without providing the enquiry report and failing to follow principles of natural justice is illegal and warrants reinstatement.

ORDER :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and validity of the orders dated 07.05.2018 (Annexure P/10) and 05.03.2019 (Annexure P/13) has been assailed by the petitioner saying that the said orders are apparently illegal and deserve to be set aside. The petitioner has also claimed that after setting aside the impugned orders direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate him in service on the post of Revenue Officer with all consequential benefits of salary and arrears.

2. To resolve the controversy, as has been raised by the parties by advancing their submission and also on the basis of record available, it is appropriate to mention necessary facts of the case, which in nutshell are as follows:-

3. The petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade I and was officiating as an Incharge Revenue Officer with the respondent-department i.e. Bhopal Development Authority (For short ‘BDA’). As per the definition given under Article 12 of the Constitution India, the Bhopal Development Authority comes within the definition of ‘State’. The service conditions of the petitioner are governed with the statutory rules i.e. known as Madhya Pradesh Development Authority Services (Officers and Servant) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (For short ‘Rules, 1987’). The respondent-department has adopted the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for the purpose of disciplinary proceeding.

4. The petitioner was holding the additional charge of Revenue Officer vide office order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure P/1). Before holding the said charge, somewhere in the year 2005, the BDA invited bids for leasing out some land situated in ISBT Bhopal on public private partnership formula. M/s Raj Homes succeeded in the said bid and was allotted the land after fulfilling the requisite formality.

5. The petitioner came to know about the said lease deed in the year 2015 when the lease deed was to be executed between the parties and he was assigned the work of calculating the penalties and valuation of the lease deed. The said lease deed was executed on 07.09.2015.

6. However, vide order dated 19/20.07.2016 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was placed under suspension as he was found involved and colluded with M/s Raj Homes in violation of certain clauses of agreement and caused loss to the respondent authority. Along with the petitioner, two other employees of the respondent-authority were also suspended.

7. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/3) leveling as many as six charges upon him and thereafter he submitted a reply to the said charge sheet denying the allegations made against him and afterwards Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct the enquiry.

8. A petition i.e. WP No. 4741/2017 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of his suspension asking his revocation. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P/6) giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the Rules whereupon he preferred an appeal against the order of suspension on 23.05.2017 (Annexure P/7).

9. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner made his regular appearance, but, as per the petitioner, no proper enquiry was held and the procedure for imposing penalties was not followed and non-compliance of the procedure as provided under sub-rules (14) to (21) of Rule 14 of Rules, 1966 has vitiated the entire enquiry. No witness was examined by the respondents and petitioner was also not granted any opportunity to explain the documents relied against him. According to the petitioner, the allegations made against him in the charge sheet and the alleged misconduct were not proved by the respondents during the course of enquiry and, even otherwise, from the material contained in the statement of articles, it can be easily said that the allegations made against the petitioner do not constitute any misconduct. As pe