Hulashi Ram Sagar vs State of U.P.,Lucknow and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 1311993 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 as contained in Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition by which petitioner was reverted from the post of SubDivisional Magistrate to the post of Tehsildar. After enquiry, it is stated that the petitioner committed some illegality, therefore, a departmental enquiry has been initiated and the chargesheet dated 28th July, 1990 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner after receipt of chargesheet, sent a reply on 17th September, 1990. The enquiry officer after receipt of reply sent by the petitioner did not fix any date for enquiry or record any evidence or permit the petitioner to crossexamine the witnesses, submitted a report to the authority concerned for action against the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner''s Counsel is that the enquiry officer committed an error in submitting inquiry report without fixing any date for evidence or recording any evidence in support of the charges. He further pointed out that, in fact, in paras 28, 29 and 30 it has clearly been stated by the petitioner that the enquiry officer has not recorded any oral evidence in support of the charges nor supplied the documents mentioned in the chargesheet. It has also been mentioned that the enquiry officer has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in defence and in fact he prepared enquiry report on the basis of the petitioner''s reply to the chargesheet. The contention of the petitioner''s Counsel is that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, on the face of it, is illegal in view of the settled principle of law and, therefore, the impugned order of reversion is liable to be set aside.

The State has filed a counteraffidavit and in reply to para 29, it is alleged that the petitioner has got reasonable opportunity to defend the case and he was not restrained to obtain copy of evidence of the relevant record required by the petitioner. It has also been alleged that it was also open to the petitioner to produce oral evidence of his order to crossexamine the witnesses referred in a chargesheet. The question of crossexamination of the witnesses does not arise and no such witnesses are produced or called by the enquiry officer. As regard the question of restrain is concerned, no doubt petitioner was not restrained but it is the duty of the enquiry officer to fix a date for crossexamination or direct the petitioner to produce the evidence in the absence of any date how the petitioner can produce the evidence before the enquiry officer. In the case of Town Area Committee, Jalalabad v. Jagdish Prasad and others, (1979) 1 SCC 60, it has clearly been held by the Apex Court that merely securing explanation of delinquent officer and on the said basis submitting its report is not proper thing as soon as the chargesheet has been served on the delinquent officer. It was the duty of the enquiry officer to hold and conduct full fledged enquiry and if any order was passed on the basis of report submitted by the enquiry officer on the basis of reply then the same is liable to be set aside. The Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and another v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 459, clearly took a view that in the absence of any regular enquiry the order is liable to be set aside.

In view of the facts stated above, the impugned order of reversion dated 13th June, 1993 contained in Annexure16 which was based on improper regular enquiry is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. The petitioner''s Counsel states that the petitioner has already retired. Therefore, we direct that the petitioner will get the other benefits in accordance with law. No order as to costs.