Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10532 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Daur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bashisth Narain Pandey,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is a Safai Karmi and is aggrieved by an order dated 20.6.2019, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Basti, whereby his services have been terminated.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 on the post in question. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 11.2.2019. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 26.3.2019. Reply to this charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner denying the allegations made therein. A show cause notice thereafter was issued to the petitioner on 7.5.2019 which refers to the enquiry report wherein it has been observed that statement of principal is found contradictory. The charge against the petitioner otherwise was that he is relied upon forged educational certificate to secure appointment. Petitioner submitted a reply to this notice whereafter the order impugned has been passed. This order of termination records that petitioner's services are being terminated by taking recourse to the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.
The order is assailed on the ground that petitioner is a confirmed employee and he ought not to be treated as a temporary government servant nor an order of termination could have been passed under the Rules of 1975. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled and the disciplinary authority has also not recorded its disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the aspect relating to disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner has been denied arbitrarily punished.
Noticing such contention, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to obtain instructions.
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions and placed before the Court report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30.4.2019. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner. As per this enquiry report, so far as charge no.1 and 2 is concerned, a clear finding has been returned that petitioner is not found guilty of the charges. So far as third charge is concerned, though defence of the petitioner has been accepted but he has been found partially guilty on account of delayed submission of response to the notice itself. Petitioner has also been exonerated on the fourth charge levelled against him. Perusal of the enquiry report would clearly go to show that the only charge which has been found partially proved against the petitioner is that he had submitted his reply belatedly. Even if such charge is proved, an order of termination cannot be passed against the petitioner for such reasons.
Even otherwise, this Court finds that the disciplinary authority has not recorded its disagreement with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer nor has afforded an opportunity to be heard in that regard, as such the order of termination cannot be sustained. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84.
Faced with the aforesaid, learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities be permitted to reconsider the matter.
In view of what has been observed, the order of termination cannot be sustained nor it could have been passed by invoking the provisions of Rules of 1975 or on the basis of enquiry report any charge is not found to be serious enough for which an order of termination could have been passed.
Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 20.6.2019 stands quashed. It shall, however, be open for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Ashok Kr.