Hira Lal vs State of U.P.

Ashok Pal Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has not only challenged his termination order dated 07.03.1989 passed by his appointing authority/respondent no. 3 but has also challenged the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 03.11.1998 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhavan, Lucknow in his claim petition.

A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on account of embezzlement of Rs. 1,500/- while acting as a Kurk Ameen. Three charges were framed against him as follows:

After completion of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer the charges were found fully proved. On the basis of report of Inquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority passed the punishing order for his termination. It appears that against the said termination order an appeal was filed by him and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. However, the said appellate order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that relevant documents were not supplied to him and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry.

There is a categorical finding of the Tribunal in its impugned order that not only copies of relevant documents were given to the petitioner but also he was allowed to make inspection of the documents. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner had put his signatures also to that effect. The relevant portion of the judgment impugned is extracted as under:

"10. In the punishment order, it is clear mentioned that the charges were duly proved against the petitioner. It is clear from the perusal of enquiry report also, which is available in departmental file. The Tribunal is not expected to go into detail about the facts and evidence during enquiry etc. unless, there is any perversity in the findings. From the perusal of enquiry file, it is clear that there is no perversity in the findings. From the perusal of enquiry file, it is clear that there is no perversity in the findings. Since the petitioner had produced defence witnesses also and he had inspected the relevant documents and copies of relevant documents were also supplied to him and he replied to the charges and his explanation to the show cause notice duly considered by the punishing authority. As such, in the light of about ruling, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case, because they were passed in different context. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, that mandatory provisions regarding supply of enquiry report shall be applicable with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. Accordingly, there is no illegality in non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner, because the punishment order was passed prior to pronouncement of judgment by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

In the light of above, the claim petition is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The claim petition is dismissed. No order is made as to costs."

Perusal of the record reveals that a proper charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. He was also allowed personal hearing and had produced defence witnesses during the said inquiry. After the charges were found fully proved, the petitioner was also issued show cause notice by the Punishing Authority which passed the punishment order after duly considering the reply given by the petitioner. While awarding punishment, the Punishing Authority, in view of the seriousness of the charges which were found proved against the petitioner, was of the view that he was not suitable to remain in service. It was only thereafter that order of punishment of termination of the petitioner was passed.

After careful consideration of the entire matter, we find that there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no illegality or any perversity in the impugned orders.

Before parting, it may also be pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Khem Chand Vs. The Union of India (UOI )and Others, but we find that they are not applicable to the facts of this case.

In our considered opinion for all the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.