Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13453 of 2018 Petitioner :- Deepak Talwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Mohan Srivastava,Shobh Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.
The petitioner while working as Junior Clerk in Ghaziabad Development Authority was issued a charge sheet dated 28.09.2017 for the charge that he has committed dereliction of duty inasmuch as he has kept the certain files for refund relating to Indirapuram colony in the bundle of disposed record outside the record room.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply contending interalia therein that floor cleaning exercise of the department was undertaken on the direction of the authorities, and under the said direction, he took out the waste and disposed files from the Almirah and prepared one bundle of waste files and another bundle of files relating to refund of Indirapuram colony separately. Thereafter, he asked the Peon to put bundle of waste files outside, but inadvertently, the peon kept the bundle of files relating to refund of Indirapuram colony outside the record room.
The enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer submitted report on 07.12.2017 wherein the charges against the petitioner as well as Pabbar Ram were found proved. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving the enquiry report, gave second show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.12.2017 calling upon him to submit objection against the enquiry report, to which petitioner filed a detailed reply, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that it has not given any due consideration to the objections filed by the petitioner against the enquiry report, and none of the objections have been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority filed by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. He submits that it is apparent from the charge sheet that charge is very trivial in nature inasmuch as the charge against the petitioner is that he has committed dereliction in duty in keeping the certain records outside the record room, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service for such trivial charge is a shocking punishment and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the due consideration has been given by the Disciplinary Authority to the objections of the petitioner in passing the impugned order. He submits that the nature of charge against the petitioner is so serious that it entails major punishment.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner in reference to the second show cause notice has filed a detailed reply, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order has not given any due consideration to the objection raised by the petitioner in his reply/objection. The learned counsel for the respondents also could not point out from the impugned order that Disciplinary Authority has dealt with any of the objections raised by the petitioner in the impugned order.
The relevant extract of the impugned order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"शश दशपक तलववर पवर मम भश गगववनदपपरम यगजनव मम भवन ससखयव जश-96, जश-525, जश-
526, जश-528 कक पतववललयवस पर बबक डडवटसग कर आवसटन कक कवयरववहश मम ससललप पवयड गयड थड, उक सनदभर मम वदनवसक 21/6/12 कग जवसच आरमभ करतड हहए उनकड ववरद जवसच अलधकवरश दवरव 2,63,465/- रपयड कक कवत वसपल वकयड जवनड कक आखयव पसतपत कक थश लजसमम ववभवगशय जवसच पचललत हब। इसकड अवतररक शश दशपक तलववर सवररजयनतशपपरम यगजनव कड 139 भपखणडड कड पकरर मम वभन-वभन कडतफल कड भपखणडड कड आवसटन मम ससललप पवयड गयड। उक पकरर मवननशय उचच नयवयवलय मम ववचवरवधशन सववरजवनक वहत यववचकव 59532/11 रवजडनद तयवगश बनवम सरकवर मम ववचवरवधशन हब तथव कवयवरलय आदडश वदनवसक 31/10/17 दवरव शश दशपक तलववर पपवर सड वनलममबत हगनड कड कवरर इनकड ववरद ववभवगशय कवयरववहश कनटडमपलडट कक गयश जग अभश पचललत हब। उपरगक तथयड पर समयक ववचवरगपरवनत शश दशपक तलववर कड अवभरकव मम दश गयश पतववललयड कग उनकड दवरव ठशक पकवर सड रख-रखवव न करनड तथव उनहम नष करनड कड ........ सड खलड मम फम कनड एवस breach of trust कव अपरवलधक कक तय करनड कड कवरर उपरगक तथयड कड आधवर पर मम सनतपष हहह वक शश दशपक तलववर कव गवलजयवबवद ववकवस पवलधकरर मम सडववरत रहनव पवलधकरर वहत तथव जनवहत मम नहह हब और इनकक सडववओस कक पवलधकरर कग आवशयकतव नहह हब। अतत शश दशपक तलववर कक सडववयम ततकवल पभवव सड समवप कक जवतश हब, सडवव समववप कड पशचवत यवद कगई धनरववश दडय रहतश हब तग उसकक कटटतश उनकड दडयड मड सड कर लश जवय। तदवनपसवर समबमनधत कग सपवचत वकयव जवय।"
Perusal of relevant extract of the order shows that the Disciplinary Authority was influenced by the earlier punishment imposed upon the petitioner which was awarded to the petitioner and consequently, he passed an order of dismissal. The impugned order further reveals that it has not given any due consideration to the objection filed by the petitioner. Thus, on the face of the record, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2018, annexure 8 to the writ petition, is set aside and writ petition is allowed permitting the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
It is needless to say that respondents, if on consideration of reply of the petitioner, finds the charges against the petitioner proved, they will award punishment as per rule commensurate to the charges against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Sattyarth