An order of punishment, dated 16th March, 2015 has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur, against the petitioner; whereby he has been dismissed from the post of Head Master in a Primary Institution. This order records that various fact finding reports were presented on the basis of which a chargesheet was issued to petitioner and the petitioner initially submitted a provisional reply running into 39 pages. An opportunity thereafter was given to the petitioner to submit his final reply, but it was not availed. The order further records that petitioner approached this Court with an object of interfering with the ongoing enquiry and this Court on 6.12.2014 passed following orders in Writ Petition No. 58344 of 2014:-
"In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is directed that in case, the petitioner wants to submit any reply to the letter dated 6.12.2014, he may submit his reply. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to conclude the enquiry after putting the petitioner to notice, expeditiously, preferably within one month from today."
The order thereafter records that a reply was given by the petitioner on 2.2.2015 and an enquiry report has been submitted against the petitioner on 6.2.2015. A further opportunity was given to petitioner on 23.2.2015 to submit his reply, which the petitioner did by filing reply on 10th March, 2015. It is thereafter that the order impugned has been passed on 16th March, 2015.
The aforesaid order is primarily assailed on the ground that no enquiry has infact been conducted, inasmuch as, no date, time or place was fixed for holding of enquiry after petitioner submitted his reply and that straight away the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to submit his report in the matter. It has also been averred that even the enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioner.
Taking note of such contention, this Court proceeded to entertain the present writ petition by passing following orders on 4.5.2015:-
"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The submission of Sri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner without holding any inquiry or at least allowing the petitioner any participation in the inquiry for want of information and that not even the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner.
Specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraphs 25 to 30.
Learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 may seek instructions and file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks' thereafter are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List for admission/final disposal thereafter."
A counter affidavit has been filed, to which a rejoinder has also been filed.
I have heard Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh for the respondent nos. 3 & 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and perused the materials placed on record.
Annexure 9 to the writ petition is a notice issued by the District Basic Education Officer to the petitioner, dated 23.2.2015. This notice refers to submission of petitioner's reply dated 2.2.2015, running into four pages, and a report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 6.2.2015. This notice is absolutely silent on the actual holding of enquiry. In the event petitioner submitted his reply on 2.2.2015, with which the enquiry was not specified, a date ought to have been fixed for holding of actual enquiry. No such date has been fixed for holding the enquiry. It is not clear as to how an enquiry report suddenly came into existence only four days after submission of petitioner's reply on 2.2.2015. This fact itself clearly lends support to the petitioner's contention that no enquiry was infact conducted by associating the petitioner in the matter.
Once the petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him in the chargesheet, it was expected that the Enquiry Officer would conduct an enquiry in which evidence would be led on behalf of the department and an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to defend himself against such materials in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer is supposed to act as an independent person or else the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer itself would lose its sanctity.
The manner in which enquiry report has been submitted within four days of submission of petitioner's reply, without actually fixing any date for holding of enquiry or letting the petitioner examine the witnesses, leaves no room for doubt that the enquiry itself was no enquiry in the eyes of law and the consequential order of dismissal passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order, dated 16th March, 2015, stands quashed.
Petitioner shall be reinstated in service for the purpose of continuing with the enquiry from the stage it has gone bad. For such purposes petitioner shall appear before the District Basic Education Officer on 10.2.2021.
An enquiry would be got conducted in accordance with law and the same shall be concluded within a period of four months. It shall be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order, based upon the findings arrived at in the enquiry report and after due opportunity of hearing and contest to the petitioner.
The question of arrears of salary etc. shall abide by the outcome of fresh enquiry to be conducted in the manner indicated above.
Direction to hold fresh enquiry in the matter is being issued in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Etc. Etc. vs. B. Karunakar Etc. Etc., (1993) 4 SCC 727.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Ranjeet Sahu