Allahabad High Court
Syed Mohammad Hamid Rizvi vs Upper Nibandhak (Prashasan) Sahkari ... on 3 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1331, [2000(85)FLR134], (2000)2UPLBEC1080
Author: V. M. Sahai
Bench: V.M. Sahai
JUDGMENT V. M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was Assistant Development Officer (Sahkarita). He was suspended on 18.5.1979. District Assistant Registrar, Fatehpur, was appointed enquiry officer. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 18.1.1980 to which he submitted a reply on 13.6.1980. In the impugned order of dismissal dated 29.1.1990. it has been mentioned that the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 7.7.1988 to Deputy Registrar. Cooperative Societies, Allahabad. Relying on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and recovery of amount has been ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 29.1.1990 by means of the present writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shrt Noorul Huda. learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, standing counsel has also produced the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no information of any date of hearing was given by the enquiry officer to the petitioner nor any copy of enquiry report was given to the petitioner. He has urged that no enquiry report is in existence and he could not be dismissed on the basis of imaginary enquiry report. On the other hand learned standing counsel urged that petitioner was dismissed after departmental disciplinary proceedings were carried on in accordance with principles of natural Justice and the charges were found proved by the enquiry officer and there is no error In the impugned dismissal order.
4. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it was alleged that no information of any date of hearing was given to the petitioner by the enquiry officer. In paragraph 26 it has been alleged that enquiry report dated 7.7.1988 was not given to the petitioner nor any information has ever been furnished to him about the existence of such a report. The allegation of petitioner made in paragraph 24 of the petition was not replied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Allegations made In paragraph 26 of the writ petition was vaguely replied. On 8.9.1998 this Court directed the respondents to file copy of report of enquiry officer. The respondents filed a supplementary counter-affidavit wherein in paragraph 3, it was stated that Inspection report and enquiry report were filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 1 have perused Annexures-1 and 2 filed along with the supplementary counter-affidavit. Annexure-1 is an Inspection report dated 7.4.1979 and Annexure-2 Is a letter dated 24.10.1979 which says that after enquiry, it has been found that there are charges against the petitioner, therefore, he was placed under suspension and charge-sheet is attached. The respondents even with the supplementary counter-affidavit did not file enquiry report. Therefore, this Court on 3.2.1999. 9.12.1999 and 17.1.2000 directed the standing counsel to produce the records Including the enquiry report. The records have been produced by standing counsel today. Sri Blshan Lal. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fatehpur, who has brought the record is present. Learned standing counsel has examined the records and has very fairly stated that copy of the enquiry report is not on the record. I have also looked into the records and I do not find the enquiry report on the record. Since the respondents have failed to produce the enquiry report and it is also not on record, therefore. It can safely be assumed that enquiry report dated 7.7.1988 was never in existence. The allegation in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that after submission of explanation, no Information about any date was fixed by enquiry officer remains unrebutted. In fact, the counter-affidavit or supplementary counter-affidavit have not denied or explained the allegation made in paragraph 24. In paragraph 23 of the counter- affidavit. It is admitted that petitioner in his explanation sought opportunity of hearing. It is not stated in any paragraph that the petitioner was heard. The enquiry officer appears to have thought that once the petitioner submitted his reply, it was not necessary to hold any enquiry. The submission of reply to the charges did not absolve the enquiry officer from holding the enquiry. The petitioner could not be dismissed without an enquiry and finding that the charges were proved. The dismissal order in absence of any enquiry was contrary to rules. Since the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, it was contrary to principles of natural justice. The dismissal order dated 29.1.1990 which is based on non-existent enquiry report and without hearing him cannot be maintained.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner has been made to suffer for no fault of his due to arbitrary action of the respondents and is entitled for payment of Interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire amount payable to him. Since the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of non-existent enquiry report, the pain and suffering through which the petitioner had undergone for about ten years cannot be comprehended. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it appears appropriate to award 12% interest per annum to the petitioner on arrears of salary payable to him. However, it shall be open to the respondents to recover the amount of Interest payable to the petitioner from Sri Chandra Prakash. Additional Registrar (Administration). Cooperative Societies, U. P., Lucknow.
6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The dismissal order dated 29.1.1990 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure- 10 to the writ petition, is quashed with all consequential benefits of service to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid his entire arrears of salary along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order Is produced before respondent No. 1. It shall, however, be open to the State Government or the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. U. P. Lucknow to recover the amount of interest paid to the petitioner in pursuance of this order from Sri Chandra Prakash. the then Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow, if he has not already retired.
7. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.