Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13400 of 2000 Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Yadav Respondent :- Dy. Director Agriculture Deoria Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,S. Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.C.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the dismissal order dated 03.03.2000 passed by Deputy Director, Agriculture (Extension), Deoria whereby he was dismissed from the post of Sahayak Krishi Nirakshak, Rajkiya Krishi Beej Bhandar, Janpad Deoria. A perusal of the dismissal order shows that it has been passed without any disciplinary inquriy proving the charges against the petitioner. It is not clear from the impugned termination order whether any disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner and charges were proved against him or not. It is settled law that even if the delinquent employee does not appear to answer the charges, it is bounden duty of the employer to prove the charges before the Enquiry Officer before any punishment order is passed on the basis of such charges.
A counter affidavit was filed by learned Standing Counsel in the year 2016 after service on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 30.05.2016 but the same is not on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has passed on a duly attested copy of the counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that there is no such averment that any disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned punishment order. By the interim order dated 15.03.2000 this Court stayed the impugned termination order and granted opportunity to the respondents to conclude the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the principle of natural justice within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner has amended the writ petition and has incorporated certain paragraphs in the writ petition. In paragraph 26 of the writ petition, it has been stated that he was reinstated in service in pursuance of the interim order but by the order dated 07.04.2000 he was suspended from service by the respondent no.1 and petitioner had to approach this Court again by way of Writ Petition No.21850 of 2000 and the suspension order dated 07.04.2000 was also stayed by this Court by order dated 10.5.2000. Thereafter, petitioner has continued in service and has also been promoted in service and has also retired from service on 31.10.2015 but his promotional benefits and other post retiral dues of the petitioner have not been paid on account of pendency of this writ petition.
From the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents have not passed any order in compliance with the interim order dated 15.03.2000 passed in writ petition. Therefore, the punishment order dated 3.3.2000 passed by respondent no.1 has attained finality.
As discussed above, the impugned order dated 03.03.2000 is not in accordance with law and has been passed without any disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and therefore, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly, quashed.
Respondents are directed to accord benefits of promotion and make payment of post retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent no.1 Writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 SS