Allahabad High Court
Rama Nand Pandey vs Director, Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan ... on 24 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)AWC491, [2000(84)FLR792], (2000)1UPLBEC495
Author: V.M. Sahai
Bench: V.M. Sahai
JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on 20.7.1964 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur City which was a private institution established in the year 1956 for imparting education to deaf and dumb students. The institution received grant-in-aid from the State Government since 1958. The petitioner was suspended by the manager of the institution on 29/30.3.87. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.87/14.4.87. He denied the allegations. It is alleged by the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry nor gave any opportunity of hearing to defend himself and submitted the report against him.
2. Before a final decision could be taken in the matter of the petitioner, the institution was taken over by the State Government by G.O. dated 11.7.88. It was renamed as Rajkiya Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya. Gorakhpur. Since the institution was taken over by the Government, the petitioner became an employee of the State Government and by order dated 5.4.91, the petitioner was appointed in suspension animation w.e.f. 11.7.88 as teacher in the institution. It was also ordered that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance but the petitioner alleges that no subsistence allowance was paid to him. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 1723 of 1987 which was subsequently withdrawn by him on 15.2.92 and thereafter he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1992, This petition was disposed of by this Court on 4.11.93 with a direction to the respondents to take decision with regard to enquiry within a period of three months and if the respondents feel that a fresh enquiry was necessary, they may hold it within the period of three months and in case the orders are not passed by the respondents, the suspension order shall be ceased to be operative. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 15.5.95 dismissed the petitioner from service. It is this order dated 15.5.95 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Rai, brief holder, State of Uttar Pradesh appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the enquiry conducted by the Manager was ex parte and no opportunity of hearing was given to him nor any date for enquiry was fixed by the enquiry officer nor he was supplied copy of the enquiry report. He further urged that the respondents did not hold any enquiry themselves, though this Court permitted the respondents to hold the enquiry but they relied on the earlier ex parte report which was submitted without following principles of natural justice. He further urged that this enquiry report dated 28.3.88 was never served on the petitioner. It was ex parts, therefore. It could not have been accepted. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the records in compliance of the order of the Court as well as the enquiry report dated 28.3.88. He urged that from perusal of the enquiry report, it is established that the petitioner did participate in the enquiry proceedings, therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner having been dismissed from service by the respondents, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
4. The petitioner in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition has clearly stated that the enquiry officer did not call the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee to defend his case. It has further been stated that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 22 of the petition, it has been stated that the enquiry officer did not send any notice or letter to the petitioner requiring him to appear before him to defend and the enquiry report was ex parte. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit, the facts stated in paragraph 22 of the writ petition are vaguely denied by the respondents. The denial is not supported by any document. Even from the records produced by the State counsel there is no evidence to show that the enquiry officer fixed any date for enquiry or issued any notice or letter to the petitioner for appearing in the enquiry. The enquiry report dated 28.3.88 has been produced by the State counsel. Since it was not served on the petitioner, he could not refute the allegations that he refused to accept the notice sent through Ram Deo peon fixing 10.3.88 and 22.3.88. Therefore, failure to challenge the recital could not lead to an adverse inference against the petitioner. As stated earlier, the alleged notice sent through Ram Deo peon does not form part of the record of enquiry proceedings. The enquiry thus was held without intimating the petitioner. But since the State counsel has vehemently relied on the recital in the enquiry report to substantiate his submission that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, it may be examined. Prom the recital in the report, it is clear that the subcommittee fixed 10th and 22nd March, 1988. And the petitioner did not appear on these- dates. In paragraph 4 of the report, it is stated that when the petitioner came to college after 22.3.88 he was sent for and when asked about the changes he denied. It is thus clear that the committee did not take any action due to absence of petitioner in response to notice sent by it. Rather as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the report, it sent for the petitioner after 22.3.88 when he came to the college. Therefore, in absence of the notice on the record of the enquiry officer, the petitioner's claim that no notice was served on him appears to be correct. Since the time fixed by the High Court in the order dated 4.11.93 had expired the committee adopted a novel procedure of sending for petitioner. When he came to the college after 22.3.88. It is denied by the petitioner. Even assuming that petitioner was sent for, no enquiry could be held without intimating the petitioner that the committee proposed to hold inquiry on the date fixed by it. The entire proceedings conducted by the committee after 22.3.88, were against principles of natural justice.
5. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 15.5.1995 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-9 to the writ petition is quashed with all consequential benefits of service to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay his entire arrears of salary w.e.f. 5.4.1991 within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 1.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.