JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.-
1. The petitioner was appointed as peon on 1.9.80 in District Judgeship of Bulandshahr. In 1985 the petitioner and one another process server were handed over papers of an execution case and were directed to execute it by arresting the Judgment debtor. According to petitioner, the dispute was settled on intervention of certain persons of the village and the settlement was endorsed on the warrant. Later, on a complaint made by the decree holder, an inquiry was directed by the District Judge and Shri D. N. Arya was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He framed the charge-sheet and served it on petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply as well. Before completion of inquiry, Shri Arya was transferred. Another Inquiry Officer was appointed. He too was transferred. Thereafter, Shri Om Pal Singh, Additional District Judge was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He issued same charge-sheet on 29.9.86. It was in English. Since the charge was same, the petitioner stated that his reply, filed earlier, may be treated as his reply. A copy of it has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On 10.11.86 the petitioner moved an application before the Inquiry officer that he had filed the affidavits of Ram Gopal Sharma and Choudhary Nukari Singh and they may be kept on record. On 1.12.86 he moved an application that the persons mentioned above were witnesses of the endorsement on the warrant, therefore, they may be summoned as witnesses. According to petitioner, he was asked by the inquiry officer to file fresh reply to the charges mentioning therein his mistake and tendering apology and if he did so, he would talk to the district Judge for a favourable order. The petitioner on 2.12.86 filed fresh reply Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.12.86. And the District Judge, on the basis of the report, terminated the services of the petitioner on 4.12.86. The appeal of the petitioner failed. He has challenged the termination order dated 4.12.86 and the appellate order dated 25.2.87 filed as Annexures-9 and 10 respectively to, this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Swapnil Kumar urged that the termination order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses nor he was permitted to examine the witnesses even though he moved an application on 1.12.86. The learned counsel submitted that the charge-sheet served on petitioner was in English and even though he demanded a copy in Hindi but it was not supplied to him which seriously prejudiced him in his defence. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner never confessed the charges levelled against him. And the finding of Inquiry Officer was based on no material. He was critical of the Inquiry Officer and urged that the incident being more than a year old it was not easy to prove, therefore, he adopted an improper procedure of taking advantage of a poor and uneducated man. The learned counsel pointed out that the manner in which the proceedings were concluded and the hurry with which the services of petitioner were terminated leave no room for doubt that the decision had been taken earlier and the proceedings were an empty formality.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri K. R. Sirohi urged that the petitioner was given personal hearing by the Inquiry Officer. He vehemently defended the order and denied any allegation of any motive. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner never demanded Hindi translation of the charge-sheet. He argued that once the petitioner confessed his guilt and stated that he did not want to cross-examine any witnesses the question of denial of natural Justice did not arise. He submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not commit any error in submitting his report nor the District Judge committed any error of law or fact in passing the order by which the petitioner's services have been terminated. The orders passed by the respondents were thus not liable to any interference by this Court.
4. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the Inquiry conducted was just and fair and whether the Inquiry Officer acted in accordance with principles of natural justice in denying the petitioner any opportunity of producing his witnesses. Further, whether the petitioner had confessed his guilt absolving the Inquiry Officer from examining the witnesses in the charge-sheet and recording a finding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. From the facts narrated earlier. it is clear that the effective inquiry started from 2.12.86 and it was completed on 3.12.86 and the termination order was passed on 4.12.86. in other words, the entire proceedings from inquiry to termination were completed in three days. In paragraphs 11. 13 and 17 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the Inquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses nor his witnesses were summoned. Paragraphs 11. 13 and 17 of the writ petition have been replied by the respondents in paragraphs 12. 14 and 16 respectively of the counter-affidavit. It has been stated by the respondents that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 3.12.86 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner as the petitioner confessed his guilt. in paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the District Judge did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of these admissions in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that principles of natural justice had been violated. The inquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules. And that too by a senior Judicial officer. The Inquiry officer has recorded finding that the petitioner stated before him that he would neither cross-examine any witness nor produce any witness. There is no record to support it. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that it was perverse to observe that the petitioner stated that he would not examine any witness. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that it required no comment as it was a matter of record. But as observed, no record has been filed nor any material has been produced to support the Inquiry Officer's observation. The petitioner filed his reply on 2.12.86 and the report was submitted on 3.12.86. No date was fixed by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, there was no occasion to record the statement of the petitioner. If the statement was made on any other occasion, then it should have been recorded. The petitioner in absence of any material has successfully challenged the observation in the inquiry report that the observation made by the Inquiry Officer was incorrect.
5. I now propose to examine if the finding of the inquiry Officer that the petitioner confessed his guilt can be maintained and whether it is supported by the record. The charge framed against the petitioner was as under :
".....you were bound by the directions of Munslf. Anupshahr, in the said warrant and Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure to arrest and produce the said Judgment-debtor before the Munsif. Anupshahr, on or before 20.12.1985 but you after arresting the said Judgment-debtor illegally released him without obtaining the said sum of money from him and further obtained the thumb impression of the decree holder Udal Sharma on the back of the warrant under the pretext of identification of the said Judgment-debtor....."
6. The reply of the petitioner is extracted below :
^^lsok essa] Jheku tkp vf/kdkjh egksn;] cqyUn'kgj prqFkZ ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] cqyUn'kgj A ekU;oj th] lfou;
fuosnu gS fd xSj U;kf;d tkp la[;k [email protected] dh tkp ds lUnHkZ esa lsod dk fuEu fouez fuosnu gS % ,d okUV eqUlQh vuwi 'kgj ls btjk; [email protected] okLrs rkehy fnukad 20-12-85 dks ekStk ujlsuk dk ny 'kekZ cuke jkenr 'kekZ] Jh cq)iky flag vknsf'kdk okgd eSa lkFk izkFkhZ dks feyk ftldh okilh fnukad 20-12-85 dh Fkh] izkFkhZ cq)iky lkFkh ds lkFk fnukad 10-12-85 dks ekStk ujlsuk okLrs djus rkehy okjUV esa igqps vkSj fMxzhnkj dks en;wu dh fu'kkunsgh ds fy;s ryk'k fd;k rks fMxzhnkj feyk A fMxzhnkj dks en;wy ds fu'kkunsgh ds okLrs dgk rks fMxzhnkj gekjs lkFk en;wu dh nwdku ij en;wu feyk en;wu dks geus vnkyr dk vkns'k lquk;k vnkyr dk vkns'k lqurs gh fMxzhnkj o en;wu o xzke ds vU; vkneh ds le{k elys dh ckrphr gksus yxh vkSj xzke ds vU; vknfe;ska us budk vkil esa QSlyk djk fn;k] QSlyk gksus ij fMxhznkj us en;wu dks fxjrkj djkus ls budkj dj fn;k vkSj xkWo ds ,d vkneh ls QSlys dh rgjhj o okjUV dh iq'r ij fy[kkdj viuk fu'kkuh vaxwBk yxk fn;k vkSj nks vknfe;ksa dh xokgh djk nh] blds ckn ge pijklh;ku okfil pys vk;s A vr% fMxzhnkj us ge pijkfl;ksa ds f[kYkkQ tks izkFkZuk i= fn;k gS og >qaBk o cscqfu;kn gS A vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ u;k vkneh gS vkSj dkuwu dh bruh ckrk ugh tkurk Fkk vxj tkurk rks fMxzhnkj ds dgus ij o QSlyss gksus ij Hkh en;wu dks ugh NksM+k tkrk A en;wu dks NksM+us ls izkFkhZ dh csgn xyrh gS A izkFkhZ bl xyrh dh ekQh pkgrk gS A vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ekQ fd;k tkos Hkfo"; esa vk;Unk ,slh dksbZ xyrh ugha gksxh A izkFkhZ lnSo vkidk vkHkkjh jgsxk A tckc Jheku th dh lsok esa izf"kr A izkFkhZ f[kEeu flag ^^vknsf'kdk okgd** U;k;ky; eqUlQh] vuwi'kgj ftyk&cqyUn'kgj A** fnukad % 2-12-86
7. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the reply filed by the petitioner to the chargesheet framed by Shri Arya. It is not denied that the charges framed by Shri Singh were the same as framed by Sri Arya nor it is denied that the petitioner had stated that the reply filed earlier may be treated as reply to the charges framed by Shri Singh. And on 1.12.86 the petitioner moved an application to summon the two witnesses yet on 2.12.86 he filed another reply Annexure-3. Even if the allegations of petitioner that he filed another reply on assurance of the Inquiry Officer that he would persuade the District Judge to let him off is ignored, the question still is whether there is any relevant statement from which tt could be said that the petitioner confessed his guilt. The reply is in two parts. The first is word for word repetition of what was said in the earlier reply denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet. The petitioner had denied the allegations of the decree holder as baseless. He explained the circumstances in which the judgment-debtor was released or not arrested. The charge of releasing the judgment-debtor without obtaining the decreetal amount and further obtaining thumb impression of the decree holder on back of warrant under pretext of identification of the judgment-debtor and procuring endorsement of payment of decreetal amount was denied as untrue and a lie. it was claimed that on intervention of persons of the village, the amount was paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree holder, therefore, the decree holder did not get the judgment-deb tor arrested. The petitioner, therefore, never confessed the charges framed against him. The finding of confession appears to be based on the second paragraph of the reply Annexure 3. But its perusal indicates that petitioner did not confess any part of the charge. What was stated by him was that he was a new man and was not aware that the judgment-debtor could not have been released even if the decree was satisfied and the decree holder agreed for release, therefore, he prayed that the mistake of releasing the judgment-debtor in these circumstances may be pardoned. it is, therefore, obvious that the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order of District Judge are erroneous at the face of it as none of them cared to read the reply dated 2.12.86. The observation of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner admitted his guilt in the written statement filed by him is factually incorrect. The petitioner had denied every allegation made against him. The statement about release of the judgment-debtor was neither admission nor confession of the charges framed against him. In fact the statement was in furtherance of what the petitioner had stated in earlier paragraphs that the matter had been settled and complaint was baseless. What was admitted was release and not the facts leading to it. On that alone the petitioner could not have been held to have confessed the guilt of the charge framed against him. The Inquiry Officer could not, therefore, record the finding against petitioner without examining the witnesses and getting the charge proved. I do not propose to say anything further but I am surprised on the manner in which the Inquiry Officer conducted the proceedings. It does not leave a very happy impression of a senior Judicial Officer. The observation in the report that the petitioner did not want to examine any witness in the light of what has been said was an inference drawn by the Inquiry Officer from the reply which is erroneous. it is obvious that the inquiry was pending since long and the Inquiry Officer instead of going through the process of proving the charge adopted a method on which I do not want to comment further. In the writ petition. It is alleged that the order had been passed on 2.12.86 itself but latter on it was changed to 4.12.86. Since I am allowing the writ petition for violation of natural Justice, I do not consider it necessary to examine this aspect. But when 1 looked into the order, the overwriting of figure 2 as 4 does create suspicion that things were not normal. Therefore, the Impugned termination order based on the report of the Inquiry Officer cannot be upheld. The appellate order also being based on it cannot be maintained.
8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The termination order dated 4.12.1986 passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-9 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 25.2.1987 Annexure-10 to the writ petition are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and pay his entire arrears of salary within a period of two months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them.