Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39849 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.J. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Petitioner has been punished by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Jaunpur, vide his order dated 20.2.2007, which order has been affirmed with dismissal of appeal by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur on 25th May, 2012. Both the orders are assailed in this petition.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Lekhpal in the revenue department of State in 1982. His initial appointment was on temporary basis and his services were regularized in 1985. It transpires that a chargesheet was issued to petitioner on 28.2.2006 after he was placed under suspension on 16.9.2005. This chargesheet was served upon petitioner on 3.3.2006. The chargesheet is Annexure-5 to the writ petition and a total number of four charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge against the petitioner is that he is not attending the weekly meetings, and therefore the orders of the competent authority are not being complied with. The second charge is that petitioner does not remain present in his area which adversely effects local agriculturists. The third charge is that petitioner has not been presenting bill and voucher relating to disbursement of funds to villagers in drought affected area. The fourth charge against the petitioner is that he has not arranged the cheques in correct order, and that 12 cheques amounting to Rs.3,350.50 paise contain signature of tenure holders. On the basis of above, an inference is drawn that petitioner was taking bribe for disbursing the cheques. In support of the charges evidence collected in a fact finding report apparently were relied upon. Petitioner submitted a reply to the chargesheet specifically denying the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer thereafter has proceeded to submit his report on 23rd October, 2006. A perusal of this enquiry report, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, would go to show that after referring to the charge, as also the reply submitted by the petitioner, the enquiry officer has submitted his comments. This enquiry report has formed the basis for passing the order of punishment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment includes petitioner's reversion to his basic pay as also denial of salary for the period he remained under suspension in addition to awarding of censure entry. Submission is that punishment awarded to petitioner would form part of major penalty in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and that the procedure contemplated in Rule 7 for conduct of an enquiry has not been followed.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the averments made in the writ petition.
5. Conduct of enquiry against the petitioner is regulated by the provisions of the Rules of 1999. Rule 3 defines minor penalties and major punishment. Reduction to a lower post in grade forms part of major penalty as per Rule 3. Where major punishment is awarded the procedure contemplated in Rule 7 has to be followed. Rule 7(vii) deals with exigency where charges levelled against the employee are denied by him. Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999, which is relevant for present purposes, is extracted hereinafter:-
"7. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - Before imposing any major penalty on a Government servant, an inquiry shall be held in the following manner:
(vii) Where the charged Government servant denies the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross- examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence:
Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness."
6. From a perusal of the enquiry report it is apparent that after the petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet denying the allegations made therein, the enquiry officer has proceeded to submit his report, which is more in the form of a comment rather than an enquiry report. Neither any witness has been called nor his statement has been recorded. An opportunity of cross-examination has also not been given to petitioner. No date, time or place is otherwise shown to have been fixed for conduct of enquiry. The enquiry officer merely on the strength of charges levelled as also the reply submitted cannot proceed to given his comments nor such comments can be a substitute for a valid enquiry report contemplated in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the authorities. The enquiry officer has failed to consider that being a quasi-judicial authority he is supposed to act in compliance of the principles of natural justice and by adhering to the statutory rules. Since the enquiry officer has failed to act in terms of the Rule of 1999, therefore, all consequential action taken against the petitioner must fall.
7. Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 20.2.2007 and 25.5.2012 stands quashed.
8. Ordinarily, this Court would have remitted the matter to the disciplinary enquiry with liberty to proceed afresh from the stage the enquiry proceedings had gone bad. This course, however, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner has already retired in the year 2015. The charges levelled against the petitioner otherwise are not of a serious nature, except the last charge, for which no evidence has otherwise been referred to in the chargesheet. The fourth charge apparently is based on inference drawn by the authorities. While allowing the writ petition, a further direction is issued to the respondents to determine petitioner's retiral benefits, in accordance with law, as per his entitlement and to disburse the benefits to which the petitioner is entitled, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Anil