Parasu Ram Singh vs Secretary of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Heard Sri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 5.10.1962 as Seed Store Incharge in Subordinate Agricultural Services GroupII. Later on, the appointment of the petitioner was made on regular basis. The petitioner was suspended by the order dated 26.4.1984 and thereafter a charge sheet dated 19.5.1984 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents on 19.1.1985 and thereafter on 21.1.1985 he submitted his reply to charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 24.6.1985. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer passed the impugned dismissal order dated 26.8.1985. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed a Claim Petition before the State Public Services Tribunal. The said Claim Petition was contested by the opposite parties by filing a written statement. The Tribunal after considering the material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the Claim Petition by the judgment and order dated 2.5.1992 on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. The said judgment and order dated 2.5.1992 passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the opposite parties in this Court by way of writ petition which was registered as writ petition No.3066 (S/B) of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 18.3.1998 and the matter was remanded to the State Public Services Tribunal, for decision afresh. The Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 9.7.1998 allowed the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner. The opposite parties being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9.7.1998 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal again approached this Court by filing writ petition No.773 (S/B) of 1999 which was allowed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 1.10.1999 and the matter was again remanded to the State Public Services Tribunal, for decision afresh. The State Public Services Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and order dated 1.6.2000 has dismissed the Claim Petition preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition before the Tribunal which was rejected by the order dated 19.7.2000. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 26.8.1985, which was communicated to the petitioner by the order dated 19.9.1985 and the judgment and order dated 1.6.2000 and the order dated 19.7.2000 by which the Review Petition was rejected has filed the instant writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents on 19.1.1985 and thereafter he submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 21.1.1985 but no enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and no witness was examined by the Department to prove the charges contained in the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. and others, reported in 2003 (21) LCD 610; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others, reported in 2001 (1) LBESR 603 (SC); K.K. Dutta v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperate, Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, reported in (202) 1 UPLBEC 425; Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, reported in (2000) 1 UPLBEC 541; Jagdish Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1039; State Bank of India and others v. Arvind Kumar Shukla, reportd in (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1377; and Hulashi Ram Sagar v. State of U.P., Lucknow and others, reported in 201 (19) LCD 1159 and on the strength of the judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon''ble the Supreme court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the obligation of the Department to prove the charges which were leveled against the petitioner but as no witness was examined by the Department to prove the charges, the impugned dismissal order deserves to be quashed.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal. He further submits that the petitioner never made any request to the Enquiry Officer that the Department may be directed to examine witnesses to prove the charges and as the relevant documents were available on the record, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report keeping in view the allegations and averments made in the charge sheet and reply submitted by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hati Lal and another, reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 605; Sahadeo Singh and others v. Union of India and others, JT 2003 (10) SC 665; and U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and others v. L.P. Rai, reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 598 and on strength of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet dated 19.5.1984 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents by the Enquiry Officer on 19.1.1985 and thereafter he submitted reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Officer on 21.1.1985. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the charges levelled in the charge sheet and the reply submitted by the petitioner, submitted the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned dismissal order on 26.8.1985. It is admitted case of the parties that after filing of the charge sheet and submission of reply by the petitioner to the charge sheet, no oral enquiry was held in the matter. The Department has also not examined any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. This Court has already held that after the charge sheet is given to a delinquent employee an oral enquiry is must, whether the employee requests for it or not. The record which has been produced before us reveals that after submission of reply to the charge sheet, no date or time was fixed by the Enquiry Officer for recording of evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the Department to prove the charges as also for the defence witnesses for holding the enquiry. We are of the view that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing and no oral enquiry as required by law was held. The case law relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel in Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another, reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 605 and Sahadeo Singh and others v. Union of India and others, JT 2003 (10) SC 665 are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the instant case, before passing the dismissal order no enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and no witness was examined by the opposite parties to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The impugned dismissal order is legally not sustainable.

In the result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 1.6.2000 and 19.7.2000 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal are hereby set aside and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 26.8.1985 which was served upon the petitioner through letter dated 19.9.1985, with all consequential benefits. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. L.P. Rai, (supra), liberty is granted to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry, in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the opposite parties shall complete the enquiry proceedings within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. The consequential benefits shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh enquiry, if any.

(Petition allowed)