Mohammad Abbas vs Settlement Officer, Consolidation And Another

Pradeep Kant, J.—The petitioner who was working as Chakbandi Lekhpal has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda on 3.7.1991.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was suspended with respect to certain charges of making false entries in the revenue records and making such interpolations so as to give advantage to private persons, was served with a charge sheet containing number of charges.

The petitioner was required to submit his reply which he did by means of reply dated 16.3.1991 against the chargesheet dated 3.1.1991. It appears that the petitioner in his reply did not mention that he wants to examine any witness or to cross examine any witness, which may be produced before the Inquiry officer by the department. The report of Inquiry officer has been brought on record by the State along with counteraffidavit.

A perusal of enquiry report would indicate that the inquiry officer has proceeded with the enquiry after observing that since the petitioner did not ask for any witness to be produced and also for cross examine any witness and, therefore, it would be presumed that the petitioner does not want to give any evidence in support of his claim. It has further been mentioned in the enquiry report that certain list of documents was asked for from the petitioner but he did not supply as desired. The Inquiry Officer thereafter proceeded to hold the enquiry unilaterally. From the enquiry report it is also evident that the inquiry Officer has relied upon various documents and revenue records and other material in support of the allegations made in the chargesheet.

It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the State that no date, time and place for inquiry was fixed by the inquiry officer nor it could be disputed that the petitioner was never summoned or issued any notice for appearing before the inquiry officer for participating in the enquiry after submission of his reply.

Learned counsel for the petitioner besides raising a question that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and that the Inquiry Officer has not proceeded to hold the inquiry in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has also failed while holding the charges as proved in not confronting the petitioner with the evidence which was being relied upon by the department and after perusal of which the charges have been found to be proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel further urged that even if the petitioner had not asked for an oral enquiry, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to give an apportunity for holding oral enquiry as the charges were not accepted by the petitioner but they were denied by the petitioner. Once the charges were denied by the petitioner, it was obligatory upon the inquiry officer to hold the enquiry in accordance with law and get the charges proved on the basis of material evidence on record and it was also essential that the petitioner was associated with the enquiry and due opportunity was given to him.

The next point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry officer who has conducted the formal departmental proceedings was also the person who conducted the preliminary enquiry and had given a report against him and, therefore, the inquiry officer was biased against the petitioner. So far as the second point is concerned, it is not relevant for this court because the writ petition can be allowed on the first question itself.

Admittedly, the inquiry officer did not afford any opportunity of hearing nor fixed any date, time and place for holding the enquiry and without associating the petitioner with the enquiry in a unilateral manner relied on the documents on record and the evidence produced on behalf of department even without giving any chance to the petitioner to contest. Since the enquiry has been conducted in a manner not warranted in law and the entire proceedings are vitiated being in gross violation of principles of natural justice, I do not find any reason for upholding the enquiry report and the order based on the same.

Learned state counsel submitted that the petitioner may be treated under suspension and a liberty be given to the State to hold an enquiry in accordance with the rules.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal from service dated 3.7.1991 contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition is quashed. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to hold an enquiry against the petitioner afresh from the stage of submission of reply of chargesheet by the petitioner. In that event the petitioner shall be treated under suspension and shall be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of four, months from today. I have not recorded any finding with respect to the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect of holding of enquiry by some other Officer because it has been brought to my notice that the said Officer has already retired from service and, therefore, there is no question of holding enquiry by him.