Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural ... on 17 March, 2023
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24573 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Verma,Amit Kumar,Smriti Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 20.06.2018 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner appointed on the post of Technical Assistant (Class-III) on 20.12.2007 by the District Programme Coordinator/Chief Development Officer, Sitapur on contract basis for a period of one year. The appointment of the petitioner was renewed from time to time.
4. It has been further stated that in the year 2018, certain complaints were made against the petitioner and a preliminary inquiry was also conducted and the report was submitted by a Committee of three persons including Block Development Officer, Assistant Engineer DRDO and Dy. Labour commissioner (Labour and Employment ), Sitapur where 04 of the 07 allegations levelled in the complaint were found to be prime facie correct and hence a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 18.04.2018 containing 08 charges. The petitioner duly replied to the said charges on 30.04.2018 and subsequently by means of order dated 20.06.2018 which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the punishment order was passed.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 would indicate that neither the charge-sheet submitted by the department was taken in account nor the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered while passing of the impugned order. It is further noticed that no proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the charge-sheet and neither any date, time and place was fixed before passing of the impugned order and accordingly it is clear from the bare perusal of the impugned order that neither was the procedure followed nor any was proper opportunity given to the petitioner to defend himself from the charges levelled against him.The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking.
6. Further surprising aspect is that during the pendency of the present disciplinary proceedings yet another show case notice was given to the petitioner on 26.04.2018 by the Dy. Labour commissioner (Labour and Employment), Sitapur again levelled certain allegations against the petitioner and this time seeking to saddle with the the financial loss caused to the department. Surprisingly, once the chargesheet has been given to the petitioner containing 08 charges including the charges which was mentioned in the show cause notice, there is no reason as to why a further show cause notice would not have been given to the petitioner on the same basis seeking a response from him.
7. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned order and submitted that petitioner has been provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the termination of services of the petitioner has been carried out after giving him a charge-sheet and after due inquiry.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. At the very outset, it is noticed that the procedure prescribed has been violated at every level while conducting the inquiry against the petitioner. Though a detail charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 18.04.2018 levelling 08 charges and thereafter the petitioner has responded to the 08 charges denying all the charges levelled against him but no date, time and place was fixed by the Inquiry Officer before passing final order.
10. The impugned order dated 20.06.2018 would indicate that entire proceedings has been culminated in a very hurried manner without adequate consideration of any of the charges. Neither reply of the petitioner has been considered and merely by reiterating the allegation against the petitioner, he has been held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer was under a duty to record a finding on each of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet. In the impugned order, neither has any of the charges levelled in the chargesheet is mentioned neither in the defence taken by the petitioner even considered and in the most arbitrary manner in just one paragraph the petitioner has been held to be guilty of the allegations leveled therein. The inquiry has been conduced in a manner which is not envisaged either in the rules or in the law and the entire procedure has been followed only in its violation.
11. The law in this regard is clear and the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of Supreme Court:-
1. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772;
2. Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 21
3. State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 236;
4. Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Limited through its Secretary. Mahaprabandhak and another Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 204 and
5. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 57.
12. This Court in the case of Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Mill, 2003 (1) AWC 704, in para 7, has observed as under :
"7. In a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Sharma V. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills, 1999 (4) AWC 3227, in which one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) was a member, this law has been laid down. The law is as follows :
"After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enqiury. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence. ......"
13. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1756 (S/B) of 2006 - Yog Narain Dubey Vs. Managing Director and Others (decided on 14.07.2011), has held as under :-
"Statutory procedure is prescribed for holding the enquiry in departmental matters. Principle of natural justice have to be followed even if there are no rules prescribing any such procedure. The enquiry starts after issuance of charge sheet in which charges are mentioned which should be clear and unambiguous. If the petitioner requires the copies of any document and makes an application in that behalf, the Enquiry Officer shall consider the application of the petitioner for supply of documents and after being satisfied about the relevancy of such documents, he shall supply the copies of such documents to the petitioner and in case it is not practically possible for any valid reason to supply the copy of any such document, he may allow inspection of such document to the petitioner by fixing date, time and place for such inspection. The enquiry officer shall ensure free access to the petitioner to such documents which are to be inspected by the petitioner. After gathering such information, reply is submitted to the charge sheet . On receipt of reply of the charge sheet the Enquiry Officer has to fix date, time and place for holding enquiry, for which formally the Department is to give one opportunity first, to lead evidence wherein the delinquent is also permitted to remain present, who is given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, if any examined and also to rebut the documentary evidence. Thereafter a date is to be fixed by the Enquiry Officer to allow adducing of evidence by the delinquent, if he so desires, which may be oral as well as documentary. It is thereafter that the Enquiry Officer after hearing the parties records his finding on the basis of the evidence which is collected during the enquiry and enquiry report is submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. Disciplinary Authority has to see whether procedure in holding enquiry has been followed or not and if not then the matter need be remitted to the Enquiry Officer to rectify the mistake but during the enquiry if he finds that all required procedure has been followed and enquiry has been held following the principles of natural justice, then he would see whether charge stands proved on the basis of material collected or brought before the enquiry officer . If the disciplinary authority is satisfied with the report of the enquiry officer, he will pass final orders after affording opportunity to the delinquent."
14. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and considering the facts of the present case it is clear that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as the provisions contained in U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1991 and no date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer.
15. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall further be entitled to all the benefits which are admissible to him as a consequence of setting aside the impugned order of termination.
16. The respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
17. With the above, observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.3.2023 Ravi/