Hafizur Rehman vs D.I.O.S., Varanasi and others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

It has been stated by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been appointed as Principal of the Institution in question on 4.11.1987 and in pursuance thereof he joined his duties on 12.11.1987 and his name was approved by the Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 11.2.1988. It has further been stated that all of a sudden by a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21.9.1990 his services were terminated without giving any notice or conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said action of the Respondents, the Petitioner filed the instant writ petition before this Hon''ble Court and this Hon''ble Court by means of the order dated 17.11.1990 stayed the operation of the impugned order. This Court by means of the order dated 6.12.1990 has directed to hold fresh enquiry which would be completed within a period of three months by a sub-committee. It has boon further submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that relevant documents have not been supplied to -the Petitioner and the whole proceeding proceeded ex-parte which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 1.4.1991, which was also challenged by filing an amendment application.

In Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the amended portion of the writ petition, the Petitioner has averred that the Petitioner has not been associated with the enquiry which has been conducted by the Sub-Committee to which a reply has been tendered in the counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management and there was no specific denial and further no date or time of the meeting of the Sub-Committee has been communicated to the Petitioner. It has also not been indicated in the counter affidavit whether the Petitioner has been supplied with the copies of the documents on which reliance has been placed during the proceedings and further there was also no denial to the fact whether opportunity for cross-examination has been afforded to the Petitioner or not.

This Court in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and others,2004 (22) LCD 1;Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited,2003 LCD 610;Shafatullah v. Commissioner, Varanasi 2002 (2) LCD 733; Radhey Shyam Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another, and Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spg. Mils Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, has held that if no, date, time and place is fixed and communicated to the delinquent for conducting inquiry after reply to the charge-sheet is submitted, the disciplinary proceedings vitiate.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank and others,1996 (1) LLJ 10 (SC) and Raj Bahadur Singh v. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Limited, Lucknow and others,1993 SCD 656 has held that without recording any oral evidence and without providing any opportunity to the Petitioner of cross-examination, the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in an ex-parte manner and it also vitiates the enquiry proceedings.

Similarly, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and Anr. v. S.B. Ramesh,1887 (78) FLR 700 (SC) and. S.C. Giorotra v. United Commercial Bank and others,1996 (1) LLJ 10 (SC) has held that if the enquiry officer did not prove the documentary evidences relied upon in the enquiry and without proving the charges levelled against the Petitioner, submitted his enquiry report, it vitiates the entire proceedings due to non-observance of principle of natural justice.

In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1986 (53) FLR 172 (SC)and Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that order of removal based upon vitiated enquiry, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

It is settled principle that in case reliance has been placed on some documents while passing the order of termination, copies of such documents on the basis of which order has been passed should be made available to the delinquent so that he may submit his reply. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the copy of the enquiry report and other relevant documents have not been supplied to the Petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid legal proposition and discussion, the impugned order of dismissal dated 1.4.1991 suffers from legal infirmities and is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.1991 is quashed.