Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Shri Y.S. Lohit, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties.

The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 24.7.2001 by which punishment has been awarded to the Petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 11.5.1992 on the basis of the alleged irregularities. The suspension order was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court by way of a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 3084 (S/S) of 1992 and by the order dated 20.5.1992 the suspension order dated 11.5.1992 was stayed. The opposite parties thereafter served a charge-sheet dated 17.3.1993 upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner has alleged that a detailed reply to the charge sheet was submitted by him on 19.4.1993. The Petitioner has further alleged that the Enquiry Officer without holding any enquiry in the matter submitted the enquiry report dated 27.11.1997. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, issued a show cause notice dated 22.3.2000 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 22.3.2000 before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after considering the material on record has passed the impugned order dated 24.7.2001.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet, no oral enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and no date, time or place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for holding the enquiry. He further submits that, no witnesses were examined by the department to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner in the charge-sheet and the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and the reply submitted by the Petitioner, submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority, who has passed the impugned punishment order in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned punishment order is in violation of the principle of natural justice and is also perverse. He has relied upon the following decisions:

Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others,

Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 10.

Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Upendra Singh,

Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. 1993 (67) FLR 1230 (SC).

K.K. Dutta v. Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and Anr. 2002 (1) UPLBEC 425.

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and Anr. 2000 (86) FLR 19 (Sum) : 2002 (1) UPLBEC 541.

Uma Shanker Yadav v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lucknow and Ors. 1993 (11) LCD 495.

Ram Sewak Mishra v. State of U.P. 1991 SCD 527.

Avtar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1989 (59) FLR 506.

10 State of Assam and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit,

The Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen,

Meenglas Tea Estate Vs. Its Workmen,

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned punishment order dated 24.7.2001 and he further submits that in spite of sufficient opportunity afforded to the Petitioner he never appeared before the Enquiry Officer with a prayer to examine the witnesses in defence.

Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

Nagar Palika, Nataur v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors. 1996 SCC L&S 638.

Union of India and Ors. v. Ram Phal 1998 (2) SCC 400.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

In compliance of the order passed by this Court the learned Standing Counsel has produced the record. It is the admitted case of the parties that the suspension order dated 11.5.1992 was stayed by this Court by the order dated 20.5.1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 3084 (S/S) of 1992. It is also admitted case of the parties that against the charge sheet dated 17.3.1993 a detailed reply was submitted by the Petitioner on 19.4.1993. The record reveals that after submission of the reply to the charge sheet no witness were examined by the department to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner in the charge sheet. The record also reveals that no date, time and place was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for recording of evidence. It is settled law that after the submission of reply to the charge sheet an oral enquiry is a must. The Enquiry Officer is under also an obligation to fix date, time and place for holding the enquiry. In the instant case no dale, time and place was fixed and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the department to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is no enquiry in the eyes of law.

In the result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The impugned order dated 24.7.2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits. A liberty is granted to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner, in accordance with law, from the stage reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the Petitioner. In the event fresh enquiry is initiated against the Petitioner the same shall be concluded by the opposite parties expeditiously, preferably within four months. The consequential benefits shall be subject to the final outcome of fresh enquiry, if any.