Satendra Singh vs State of U.P.and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Copy of counter affidavit is not on record. Duplicate copy has been taken from learned Standing Counsel which is placed on record.

Petitioner is a Collection Amin. A chargesheet dated 8.2.2002, as contained in Annexure2 to the writ petition was served on the petitioner with certain allegations. In response to chargesheet, petitioner had submitted a reply dated 26.2.2002, as contained in Annexure3 to the writ petition. Petitioner had denied the allegation contained in the Chargesheet. After submission of the reply to the chargesheet petitioner had moved an application for opportunity to cross examine the witness. It appears that the Enquiry Officer had issued a notice on 8.3.2002 which served on the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer had fixed the date 18.3.2002. On this date according to learned Standing counsel petitioner was not appeared before the enquiry officer, hence, the enquiry officer had submitted a report dated 23rd April 2002, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. After receipt of enquiry report a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 30th April 2002. Copy of show cause notice has been filed as Annexure5 to the writ petition. Thereafter by a letter dated 12.6.2002, the Enquiry Officer had directed the petitioner to appear for personal hearing within a week. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that said notice was served on then petitioner on 6th July 2002. Petitioner''s counsel submits that though the notice for the personal hearing was served on 6th July 2002 the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 28th June 2002 earlier to service of the notice dated 12.6.2002 filed as Annexure7 to the writ petition.

The original letter dated 12.6.2002 on record contains an entry by Collection Amin that petitioner had taken a copy of notice on 19.6.2002 but declined to sign in lieu of acknowledgement. However, writ petition deserves to be allowed on different ground. Admittedly the petitioner had submitted a reply to the chargesheet and he had moved an application for opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. Even if, petitioner had not appeared on the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to hold an ex parte enquiry. In view of law settled by Apex Court followed by this Court in the cases reported in 2000 (1) UPLBEC 5413, Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and others, 2003 LCD 610, Radhey Shyam Khare v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar, 2000 AIR SCW 3826, Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam v. Girja shanker Pant, 1997 LCD 1213, Ram Bhul Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 LCD 611, Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 LCD 1287, Ram Sunder Lal v. S.D.M. Sultanpur, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1951, Om Pal Singh v. D.D.O., Ghaziabad, 2001 LCD 1159, Hulashi Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 LCD 168, Subodh Kumar Trivedi v. State of U.P., 1999(1) UPLBEC 157, Mehraj Singh v. U.P.P.S.T. and others, 1993 (1) SCC 13, State Bank of India v. D.C.Agarwal, 1986 S.L.J. 279 SC 1986, S.C. 2118, Kashi Nath Dixit v. Union of India, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 672, P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (6) SCC 651, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, 1998 SC 117, Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and others and 1985 SC 1121, Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others.

Regular departmental enquiry means not only the recording of oral evidence to proof the charges but also to provide opportunity to crossexamine the witness. Opportunity to lead the evidence in defence should also be provided to delinquent employee apart from right of personal hearing. Assuming that as mentioned in enquiry report the petitioner was not appeared on 18.3.2002 though it has been denied by petitioner, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to record oral evidence to substantiate the charges and thereafter fixed another date providing an opportunity to petitioner to lead evidence in defence. Procedural illegality has been committed by the enquiry officer while submitting the enquiry report. Accordingly consequential order of dismissal passed by the competent authority vitiates and deserves to be set aside.

Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is allowed. Writ in the nature of certiorari is issued, quashing the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by opposite party No.3 with all consequential benefits. Petitioner shall be entitled to be restored in service with all consequential benefits. It shall be open to respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of filing of reply to the chargesheet against the petitioner in the light of observation made hereinabove. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

(Petition allowed)