Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand & Others ... vs Krishan Pal Singh on 13 February, 2019
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.543 of 2017
State of Uttarakhand & others ............Appellants
Vs.
Krishan Pal Singh ..........Respondent
Dated: 13th February, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/appellants and Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.650 of 2016 dated 28.3.2017.
3. The aforesaid writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions and, by a common order dated 28.3.2017, the learned Single Judge held that the services of the petitioners were terminated without holding a regular enquiry; and the petitioners were permanent employees and their service could only have been terminated in conformity with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court, in 'D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.' 1993 (3) SCC 259, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the State to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
4. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that, relying on a Basic Training Certificate produced by him as proof of his possessing the prescribed qualifications, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 12.3.1996. On a complaint made against him, that the Basic Training Certificate produced by him was fake and false, a charge-sheet 2 was issued to the petitioner on 11.3.2014, calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for submitting a fake Basic Training Certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet on 28.3.2014 denying the charge. In his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner stated that, while he had failed in one paper in the main examination, he had appeared for the supplementary examination with the very same roll number and, on his having passed the supplementary examination, he was awarded the Basic Training Certificate.
5. No departmental enquiry was held thereafter. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.12.2015, and continued to remain under suspension till he was dismissed from service by order dated 6.1.2016.
6. The appellant-respondent should have conducted a departmental enquiry, in as much as the respondent-writ petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him. They should have also afforded the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in such an enquiry and, thereafter, should have furnished him a copy of the enquiry report calling for his objections. It is only thereafter, could a punishment have been imposed on the petitioner. Instead, the appellant has straightway, after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges, dismissed him from service.
7. While, we find no error in the order under appeal necessitating interference in so far as the order of punishment was set aside by the learned Single Judge, the fact however remains that the learned Single Judge has also directed that the respondent-writ petitioner be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.
8. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.12.2015, and continued to remain under suspension when he was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 6.1.2016. Setting aside the order of punishment would only require that the order of 3 suspension be continued, and for the disciplinary enquiry to be completed early.
9. In such circumstances, we consider it appropriate to modify the order of learned Single Judge and direct the appellants-respondents to continue to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance, which he is entitled to during the period of suspension, till the completion of departmental enquiry initiated against him.
10. As a charge memo was issued to the petitioner as early as on 11.3.2014 i.e. nearly 5 years ago, the appellant- respondent is directed to complete the departmental enquiry with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
11. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) Rdang/Balwant