Daddan Mishra vs State of U.P.& Ors.

Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of Counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the chargesheet dated 28122004 Annexure11 to the writ petition. A further writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to pay arrears of promotional scale and fix pensionary benefits according to rules.

Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are;

Petitioner who was working as District Youth and Welfare/PRD Officer, Fatehpur, was chargesheeted vide chargesheet dated 2271996, 31101996, 31101996, 12121997 and 155 1998. The disciplinary enquiry proceeded in pursuance of the chargesheet and subsequently the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 2471998. The petitioner filed an appeal and representation which too were dismissed. A writ petition No. 12872 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order dated 2471998 and the orders dated 1021999 and 10111998. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2252003. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted below:

�For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2471998, 1021998 and 10111998 (Annexures25 and 27 to the writ petition) respectively are set aside. It will be open to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry from the stage of chargesheet and to conclude the same in accordance with law. Petitioner will be treated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation, and he shall be entitled to get the provisional pension and other retiral benefits subject to the result of inquiry against the petitioner.�

From perusal of the judgment it appears that the writ petition was allowed on the ground that there was violation of principle of natural justice. Enquiry Officer proceeded to take evidence behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses. Overlapping charges were found in respect of later chargesheets submitted by the enquiry Officer. This Court permitted enquiry from the stage of charge sheet and directed to conclude the same. The petitioner was treated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After the order of this Court dated 2252003 a chargesheet was given on 28122004 containing 19 charges. The chargesheet dated 28122004 has been challenged in this writ petition. This Court vide interim order dated 1972005 has stayed the further proceedings in pursuance of the subsequent chargesheet dated 28 122004. The learned Counsel for the petitioner informs at the bar that vide letter dated 2752005 the petitioner was asked to submit reply to the chargesheet 1 to 6 as mentioned above.

Counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents in which various charges mentioned against the petitioner have been highlighted. It has been stated against the petitioner that the enquiry has been again initiated by the chargesheet dated 2812 2004. It is stated that the petitioner has not replied the chargesheet.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

The final judgment of this Court dated 2252003 permitted Enquiry to be proceeded from the stage of the chargesheet. The Court vide its judgment dated 2252003 has not permitted the respondent to give any fresh chargesheet or add any new charge. The effect of the order was that the enquiry will revive from the stage of the chargesheet i.e. further proceedings after the chargesheet were to be gone into. The order did not permit the respondents to give any fresh charge sheet. However, in view of the observations of the Court that certain charges were overlapping, at best the respondents could have clarified or modified by deleting any overlapping charges if any. In the event the respondent did not delete any overlapping charges the enquiry could have proceeded on the chargesheet Nos. 1 to 6 as noted above. The issuance of the chargesheet dated 28 122004 is clearly unsustainable. The enquiry was to proceed against the petitioner on the charges which were already there and were served on the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid the fresh chargesheet issued on 28 122004 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall proceed on the basis of the chargesheet Nos. 1 to 6 as noted above. There being already much delay in conclusion of the enquiry ends of justice be served in directing the respondent to conclude the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be paid his provisional pension regularly to which the petitioner is found entitled in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the provisional pension shall be subject to final determination which may be made in accordance with relevant rules for determination of final pension after the conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. The claim of the petitioner regarding scale to which he is entitled for fixation of pension, is being left open to be decided by the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent be directed to make payment of pension to the petitioner from Allahabad. The petitioner may make an application for making payment of pension from Allahabad treasury before the appropriate authority which shall pass appropriate order. The petitioner shall cooperate with the disciplinary enquiry.

With the observations as made above, the writ petition is disposed of.