JUDGMENT Shishir Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.7.1992. (Annexure) to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 10.3.1987 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2. Further prayer in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding conducted by the respondents on the ¦ basis of. the charge sheet dated 3.2.1983 and to treat the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed into service on the post of Cashier in temporary capacity and subsequently confirmed on the said post of Cashier in the Nagarpalika, Mirzapaur. From 1.7.3980 the petitioner went on leave without pay up to 31.12.1980. The said leave was duly approved by the competent authority vide its order dated 19.7.1980. The petitioner vides his application dated 26.12.1980 sought further leave without pay with effect from 1.1.1981 to 31.1.1981. Again, petitioner from time to time submitted various applications for leave up to 87.1982 and joined his duties on 9.7.1982. During the period when the petitioner was on leave without pay, the office incharge vide its order dated 2.2.1981/23.2.l987 directed the petitioner to show causal as to why his application for leave without pay dated 30.1.1981 be not rejected. The petitioner appeared before the office incharge as directed by him and after considering the petitioner's grievances permitted the petitioner to continue on leave. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On account of leave sought by the petitioner, an alternative arrangement has been made by appointing one Sri Ashok Malviya, in place of the petitioner on temporary basis, who happens to foe son of Sri Hari Das Malviya, Tax Inspector, Nagarpalika. Mirzapur and nephew of Sri Mahesh Malviya, Counsel for Nagarpalika, Mirzapur at Civil Court, Mirzapur. Sri Ashok Kumar Malviya is liable to be removed from the services alter the resumption of duty by the petitioner. A complaint to this effect was made to the Executive Officer that the conduct of the petitioner is contravention of the Municipalities Servants Conduct Rules. The Administrator Nagarpalika, Mirzapur vide its order dated 1st' October, 1982 placed the petitioner under suspension and a charge sheet containing three charges were issued on 3.2.1983- A copy of the same is being filed herewith as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The charges Nos. 1 and 2 pertains to one and the same action in as much as charge No. 1 alleges that the petitioner remained absent from duty after 31.12.1980 without, getting his leave application duly approved. from the competent authority and therefore, was guilty of indiscipline. Charge No. 2 alleges that the petitioner worked in a private concern after remaining on leave without pay, Which was a conduct contrary to the Municipalities Servants Conduct Rules and Regulation. The charge No. 3 alleges that the petitioner on 11.3.1990 left the office and treasury without giving charge to any one else, therefore, acted negligently. In respect of Charge No 1 nine documentary evidence were relied upon and in respect of Charge No. 2, three documents were relied upon and in respect of Charge No. 3, three documents were relied upon. It is the case of the petitioner that copies of none of the said documents were given to the petitioner along with, the charge sheet, as such the petitioner was not in a position to give proper and adequate defence in absence of the said documents. Petitioner thereafter requested the disciplinary authority vide its letter dated 8.2.1983 to permit the petitioner to give reply. The petitioner was permitted inspection, of he files on 23.2.1982, Then the petitioner also requested the disciplinary authority to furnish: the copies of the entire documents in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner After obtaining copy of the said documents the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.9.1983 to the Enquiry Officer, who has been appointed by the disciplinary authority in exercise of his powers under Rule 85 of the. U.P. Municipalities Servants Rules, 1956. A copy of fee same has been. filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Petitioner submits that to the utter surprise, the Enquiry Officer without holding any oral enquiry submitted a report to the disciplinary authority on 11.12.1985.Tlie Administrator, Nagarpalika, Mirzapur, vide its letter dated 19.1.1987 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the petitioner may not be removed from service as as the charges were found proved by the. Enquiry Officer in his report dated 11.12.1985.The petitioner vide its letter dated 9.2.1987 gave a detailed reply by refuting all the charges and also stated that entire enquiry was a nullity in the eyes of law in as much as no oral enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry officer has relied upon the documents, which were not admissible in evidence. The respondents without adverting to the said reply of the petitioner dated 9.2.1987,the Administrator Nagarpalika, Mirzapur vide his order dated 10.3:1987 by which the services of the petitioner has been removed. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No I under Rule 3 of the U.P. Municipalities Servant Appeal Rules, 1967. The, respondent No. 1 also by a non-speaking and unreasoned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated 23.7.1992. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no oral enquiry has ever been conducted by the respondents, which was a mandatory requirement under Rule 5 of the U.P. 'Municipalities Servants Enquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service Rules. 1960.
3. Placing reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in K.S. Gill v. State of Punjab reported in 1990 (4) Judgment Today, Page-70, it has been submitted that issuance of charge sheet/show cause notice and obtaining reply is no substitute of the full-fledged departmental enquiry. A government servant is entitled to examine the witnesses appeared on behalf of the department and to produce his own witnesses. As such, in violation of the aforesaid Act, the total proceeding is vitiated. The entire charge sheet based on documentary evidence, which remained unproved by the author of the said document and therefore, in view of the settled law reported in A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court, Page 330 that unless the author of documents is examined and delinquent employee is given an. opportunity to cross examine it cannot be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry, is wholly is violation of the principle of natural justice. On behalf of the department, no witness was examined and the enquiry officer proceeded on the assumption that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity either to cross examine any witness or to give statement expressly refuting the charges leveled against the petitioner. As no enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the Rules, the impugned order of removal is liable to be quashed.
4. Notices have been issued and counter affidavit. has been filed. In Para-4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the record itself proved that the petitioner was absent from duty without any sanction of leave. The detailed of application and leave of the petitioner mention in Para 4 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced
(i) The petitioner was on leave between 10.12. 1979 to 29.12.1979, but Joined an 22.12:1979:
(ii) He gave application on 14.1.I980 for leave from 14.1, to.25.1.1980:
(iii) He gave application on 1.2.1980 for leave from 4.2.1980 to 24.21980.
(iv) Me gave application on 25.2.198O for the 25.2.1980 to 24.3.1980;
(v) He again gave application on 4.3.1980 for leave for the period 04.3.1980 to 15.3.1980.
(vi) The Office Incharge cancelled his leave on -4.3.1980.
(vii) The petitioner gave application on 5.31980 for joining.
(viii) On 11.3.1980 gave application for two days leave
(ix) On 13.3.1980 gave application for leave for 14 and 15 march 1980.
(x) On 17.3.1980 sent application for 17.3.1980 to 30.4.1980.
(xi) On 1.5.1980 sent application for leave for the period 1.5.1980 to 31.7.1980.
(xii) On 16.6.1980 sent application for leave for the period of two months.
(xiii) On 17.7.1980 sent application for leave for the period 1. 7.1980 to 31.12.1980.
(xiv) Again sent application on 31.1.1981 'for the period 1.2.1980 to 31.3.1981
(xv) The Office Incharge vide his letter dated 21/23.2.1981 called explanation of the petitioner on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for the gram of leave.
(xvi) On 24.2.1981 the petitioner sent application to office Incharge for leave without pay.
(xvii) On 30.3.1981 sent application for leave for 'he period 1.4.1981 to 30.6.1981 and similarly went on sending application for leave for the period 1.7.1981 to 31.12.1981 1.1.1982 to 31.3.1982. 1.4.1982 to 31.5.1982.
(xviii) The Office Incharge on 20.4.1982 called for the report to the effect that the petitioner was absent without sanction of leave as such report he taken for disciplinary action against him.
(xix). It was further found that the petitioner was deceiving the Nagar Palika and was working in some Private Firm namely Goinka Enterprises, Minapur."
5. It has also been submitted in the counter affidavit that vide its order dated 22.1.1981/23.2.1981 the office incharge has called explanation of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner was working in a private firm. The petitioner gave explanation on 24.2.1981 and sought for farther leave. There is nothing in record to show that any leave was granted to the petitioner. This was a fact admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was working in a private firm without taking permission of Nagarpalika Parishad was fully established on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was allowed to make inspection!' of the documents. The petitioner' did the inspection on 23.2.1983 and 24.2.1983 in the presence of the office Superintendent and has also made endorsement to this effect aid the copy of the relevant documents were also supplied to the petitioner on his demand. In Paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, a clear averment has been given that the charges levelled against the petitioner that he is working in the firm without any permission were based on the basis of the records and documents, which were relied for framing the charges. The applications of the petitioner sent for leave, the certified copies of the complaint filed as Criminal Case No. 658 of 1982 and the copy of the statement of the petitioner given to the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case have not been denied by the petitioner The petitioner never desired to examine or cross-examine any witnesses for the purposes of establishing his defence. It has further been stated that absenting from duty without sanction of leave, working in some other organization during the period he continued to sent applications for leave, without taking permission of Nagarpalika Parishad are facts, which is clearly established and it amounts to misconduct of an employee. In such a way the respondents submits that the proper procedure as provided under the Act and Rules have been followed as from the perusal from the reply of the petitioner regarding Charge No. 2. The petitioner has himself admitted that only to make his future bright, the petitioner after taking leave he is working in a private firm only to learn the Commercial Act. Regarding Charge; No. 3, the petitioner has himself admitted this fact in his reply that on 11.3.1980 in the morning he was having some trouble in his stomach and about 2 00 p.m. he feels nature's call and as such, immediately he has taken two days leave and be has requested orally one Ram Rangole Lal to take the charge of treasury. In such a way, the respondents submit that the petitioner himself has admitted the charges leveled against the petitioner.
6. The respondents have placed reliance upon a judgment reported in A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court Page 1489 Krishna Chandra Tandon and others has placed reliance upon Paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below:-
"18. It was next argued that in this case there was really no personal hearing, that is to say, according to Mr. Hardy, the enquiry was not conducted in the manner in which departmental enquiries are usually conducted. What he means is that the enquiry did not lake the shape of a trial as in a. court of law where oral evidence 'is led and witnesses are offered for cross-examination. The enquiry consisted chiefly of eliciting replies to questions put by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the assessment records and this according to Mr. Hardy, id not amount to a proper enquiry. There is, however, no set form for disciplinary enquiries. It is true that in some cases oral evidence may Have to be led when witnesses are called to give evidence and are offered for cross-examination. But in other cases that may not be the appropriate mode of enquiry. For example, in the present case, the appellant was charged on the basis of his assessment orders. The various flaws in the assessment were pointed out to him. 'His answers were recorded, Opportunities were given to him to explain the circumstances disclosed by the evidence called from the assessment orders themselves He gave the explanations We do not see how it could be said that this is not personal hearing. In fact it is very much so. At every step he was questioned with regard to the record he himself had made an opportunity granted to explain the circumstances against him. The necessary requirement of natural justice is a reasonable opportunity to defend That was given in the present case and, therefore, there can he really no complaint on the score that there was no personal hearing. If appears that only one witness named Rajvir Singh had been examined but the Enquiry Officer himself rejected his evidence and no more was said about him thereafter."
"19. It does appear in this case that while the enquiry was pending the Enquiry Officer made some enquiries with regard to the appellant's immovable properties at Lucknow, In these enquiries, the appellant himself was not associated, The High Court took exception to the Enquiry Officer's finding based on these private enquiries and, in our opinion, rightly, it held that finding on charge No. 2 in the third charge-sheet was vitiated. Except for this lapse on the part of the Enquiry Officer there does not appear to be any serious ground for complaint that the appellant was convicted on evidence which was not disclosed to him."
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2000(1) UPLBEC, Page-425 and has submitted that if before passing the order of dismissal the accused employee has to be given by the enquiry officer the date of time and place of the enquiry, if it has not been done; the enquiry is not proper.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.
9. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner has obtained the leave. The first leave was between JO. 12.1979 to 29.12; 1979. After that the record shows that up to 1982 the petitioner was continuously making an application for leave without verifying the fact whether the leave application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been sanctioned or not. Regarding charge No. 2, which was leveled against the petitioner, the petitioner has admitted this fact that the petitioner after taking leave from the office of Nagarpalika was working in a private firm namely Goneka fenterpirises Regarding the leave applications, which has been filed from time to time, the petitioner has not denied. As regards, the Charge No. 3, the petitioner himself has submitted in his reply that on 11.3.1980, the petitioner was feeling some trouble in his stomach and he has left the treasury only on the basis of oral request. This action of the petitioner cannot be appreciated as it was the duly of the petitioner that he should handed over the treasury to a responsible officer and there must be some document to show that the treasury was handed over to an officer bearer of the Nagarpalika. From the record, it is also clear that the petitioner himself has admitted this fact that he has been permitted to inspect the documents and copy of this have been given to the petitioner. Regarding the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner that no oral enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to make a statement before the Enquiry Officer, and to contradict the relied upon documents and without oral enquiry the total proceedings is vitiated. The Court has perused the charges levelled against the petitioner and: relied upon document before the Enquiry officer only the leave applications submitted by the petitioner, the reply of the petitioner by which the petitioner has himself admitted this fact that he is working in another private institution after taking leave. The documents of the petitioner, which was before the enquiry officer has been taken into consideration for the purposes of taking action against the petitioner. There was no document other than the application of leave, reply given by the petitioner, which has been relied by the respondents before passing the order against the petitioner. If the own documents submitted by the petitioner itself prove the charge of misconduct against the petitioner then in my opinion, the contention of the petitioner that oral enquiry was necessary for the purposes of punishment of the petitioner appears to be misconceived. The Court while considering the grievance of the aggrieved persons has also proceeded to see the conduct of a person concerned In the present case the petitioner in contravention of the Service Rules after making various applications for leave from 1979 to 1982 admittedly, working in another private enterprises* which in my opinion, is not permissible and should be treated to be misconduct. In the reply submitted' by the petitioner the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that the competent authority has sanctioned 'the leave. In such a way I feel feat in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the contention of the petitioner is not correct and the punishment, which has been awarded against the petitioner is on the basis of the relevant documents of the petitioner and admission of the petitioner itself. The misconduct of the petitioner has been proved, in such a way I feel in. the facts and circumstances of the present case that in spite of the fact if some normal procedure, which was to be followed has not been followed, this Court should lay its hand to interfere like the present case.
10. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.