Nagarpalika Parishad and Another vs Wasiuddin

Heard Shri Suneet Kumar for the petitioners. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Akram for respondent.

The Nagarpalika Parishad, Nehtor, District Bijnor has filed this writ petition against the order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated 20.1.2010 in Claim Petition No. 881 of 1995, filed by Wasiuddin-respondent in this writ petition against the order of his dismissal as Accounts Officer in Municipal Board dated 23.10.1992 and appellate order dated 29.12.1992.

The Tribunal has allowed the Claim Petition, and while setting aside the orders dated 23.10.1992 and 29.12.1994, directed the opposite party to reinstate the respondent-employee in service forthwith. The operative portion of the order is quoted as below:

ORDER

The claim petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.10.92 as contained in Annexure A-1 and order dt. 29.12.94 as contained in Annexure A-2 are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. He will be given continuity in service but the question of back wages will be decided by O.Ps Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by them.

However, this order will not preclude the opposite parties from proceeding afresh against the petitioner from the stage of service of the charge sheet in accordance with rules after supplying the relevant documents demanded by him.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- 20.1.10 Sd/- 20.1.10 (Dr. G.C. Pandey) (Justice R.P. Yadav) Member (Admn.) Chairman

The Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order on the ground, that the documents, referred to and relied upon in support of the charges in the charge sheet, were not enclosed and made annexures with the charge sheet. The respondent had made a note on the foot of the office copy of the charge sheet that the documents were not annexed therewith. He made a request for supply of the documents but the same were not given to him. The same appears in case of supplementary charge sheet also. The Tribunal found that though the petitioner-opposite party had the power to reject the request, but that no reply was given to the employee on his applications to give him copies of the documents. The Tribunal has further observed that the punishment order is too cryptic and slipshod and is not speaking and reasoned. Even the charges are not noted in the order and reply given by the employee has not been mentioned. No reason has been given to reject the pleas of the employee in defence.

Shri Suneet Kumar submits that the documents annexed to the writ petition would show that the employee was allowed inspections of documents, in respect of both the charge sheets. The documents including the ledgers and the accounts books were voluminous in nature. After giving the supplementary charge sheet, the request of the employee to inspect the documents was allowed. The inspections were taken on 4.2.1992 and 7.2.1992, but that the respondent refused to give in writing that he had inspected the documents in the letter dated 11.6.1992. The employee had stated in his reply dated 23.6.1992, that he had made inspections on 7.2.1992, but that he did not accept the inspections of documents on 4.2.1992.

It is admitted that the documents, relied upon in support of the charges in first charge sheet and in the supplementary charge sheet, were not given to the employee. He was alleged to be allowed inspections but that he denied to have made inspections on 4.2.1992. It is further not clear on record as to what documents were allowed for inspections on 7.2.1992. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal that the employee was handicapped in submitting his reply and that by not providing him to documents and allowing inspections the principles of natural justice were violated.

Shri Suneet Kumar submits that the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Administrator of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nehtor, had considered claimant''s reply to the enquiry report. He did not find the reply to be satisfactory and that since there were serious allegations of fraud and embezzlement causing loss to the Palika, The Tribunal has not committed any error of law in finding that the disciplinary authority has not considered the reply given by the employee to the enquiry report. The approach of the disciplinary authority was mechanical. He simply mentioned that the enquiry officer has found certain charges to be proved and thereafter stated that the reply of the employee was not satisfactory. The order does not show application of mind to the reply given by the employee.

Shri Suneet Kumar lastly submits that the Tribunal has committed gross error of law in reinstating the employee while allowing the departmental enquiry to proceed from the stage of service of charge sheet upon him in accordance with the Rules after supplying relevant documents demanded by him.

Shri Suneet Kumar submits that the Supreme Court has consistently held in the judgments in Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya case, (2002) 10 SCC 293 U.P. State Spinning Corporation Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey (2005) 8 SCC 264; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., followed in Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector (2008) 12 SCC 30 that where infirmities in disciplinary proceedings lead to quashing the order of punishment, the reinstatement should not be ordinarily ordered. The Supreme Court directed that in such cases there shall not be any reinstatement but the proceedings should be allowed to continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced.

In the present case, the respondent was placed under suspension by an order published in newspapers on 22.9.1991. He was dismissed on 23.10.1992, and that his appeal was dismissed on 29.12.1994. We therefore do not find appropriate that the employee should be reinstated in service for completing departmental enquiry.

Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu (supra), we partly allow the writ petition and while quashing the directions of the Tribunal dated 20.1.2010 in Claim Petition No. 881 of 1995 to reinstate the respondent in service, direct that respondent-employee shall be reinstated, but without any back wages and other service benefits and his reinstatement shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. His entitlements, if any, would be adjudicated by the authorities depending upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings. The departmental enquiry shall be completed within four months from today, provided the respondent-employee cooperates in the enquiry proceedings.