Allahabad High Court
Ramjit Maurya vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Revenue ... on 29 November, 2019
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 32411 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramjit Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed order dated 25.11.2019 as under :
"Heard Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the charges which has been indicated in the impugned charge-sheet dated 5.7.2019 (Annexure no. 2) the vigilance inquiry is pending since February, 2019 as shown in Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. Therefore, for the same set of facts and charges two simultaneous inquiries are not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that for the same set of facts and charges two simultaneous inquiries may not be conducted.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of order dated 23.11.2019 preferred by Superintendent of Police, U.P. Vigilance Department, Varanasi addressed to the Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow wherein this fact has been admitted that the vigilance inquiry against the petitioner is pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated Annexure no. 4 which is a recommendation of inquiry against the petitioner by the Lokayukt and the learned Standing Counsel has also shown those recommendations in his letter dated 23.11.2019. It appears that pursuant to the recommendation dated 21.1.2019 whereby the departmental inquiry as well as the vigilance inquiry has been directed, therefore, both the inquiries against the petitioner are pending.
List / put up this petition on 27.11.2019 in the Additional Cause List to enable the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek specific instructions as to whether two simultaneous inquiries can be conducted against an employee for the same facts and charges and if so under which provision of law. If there is any case law to that effect the learned Additional C.S.C. shall demonstrate the same, the instructions are taken on record."
In compliance of the aforesaid order Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced letter dated 27.11.2019 preferred by one Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Joint Secretary of the Department addressing to the office of learned C.S.C., High Court, Lucknow, same is taken on record. As per aforesaid letter both the inquiries, one pending before the department and second pending before the Vigilance department are separate. The vigilance department shall be examining the allegation in respect of accumulation of property beyond his source of income and in the departmental inquiry total nine charges have been levelled against the petitioner, however, some charges appear to be related with the allegation of accumulation of property beyond the sources of income but the charge is otherwise that the said property has been accumulated by the petitioner without seeking prior permission from the department, therefore, it is tantamount to misconduct.
Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such allegations are false and misconceived and the petitioner shall be replying those charges charges by filing defense reply but since all relied upon documents and relevant documents have not been provided to the petitioner till date and some copies of those documents are not legible. He has preferred representation to the competent authority for providing the clear and legible copies of those documents. He has further submitted that till date the demanded documents have not been provided to the petitioner.
Since chargesheet has been issued against the petitioner on 5.7.2019 and the petitioner has demanded the clear copies of the documents, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the inquiry officer / disciplinary authority to provide clear copies of all documents demanded by the petitioner with promptness preferably within a period of seven days.
In the meantime the petitioner may again submit his representation in respect of those documents. As soon as the petitioner receives the copies of all relied upon documents he shall submit his defense reply to the charge sheet within a period of 15 days and after receiving the defense reply to the charge sheet the departmental inquiry shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with expedition preferably within a period of two months and the findings of inquiry report shall be submitted before the disciplinary authority forthwith and thereafter the disciplinary authority shall pass final order if required in the case of the petitioner after providing him a copy of inquiry report and seek explanation to that effect with expedition preferably within a period of three weeks. In any case the departmental inquiry against the petitioner shall be conducted and concluded as aforesaid within two months after receipt of the defense reply to the charge sheet and the final order if any shall be passed within a period of three weeks after receiving the findings of inquiry report.
Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]