Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25291 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sandeep Chopra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2018 passed by the Superintending Engineer by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner had filed writ petition namely Writ-A No. 53832 of 2012 (Sandeep Chopra vs. State of U.P. & Others) challenging the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The Court had partly allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry and then take appropriate decision in the matter after following the principles of natural justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the enquiy report submitted by the Enquiry Committee which is in the form of the chart mentioning the charge, the petitioner's reply and the Enquiry Committee's conclusions. After the enquiry report was submitted a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 05.11.2018 running into almost more than 34 pages and thereafter also submitted a supplementary reply and appeared in person before the Superintendent Engineer on 05.11.2018 with the supplementary reply but the reply of the petitioner and his explanation has not been considered by the Superintending Engineer while passing the order of dismissal from service.
It appears that the appointing authority, although referred to the personal hearing given to the petitioner, has not made any attempt to compare the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee and has not given any cogent reasons for coming to a conclusion of culpability of the petitioner.
Since this matter involves dismissal from service to the petitioner, ordinarily the Court is required to ask for an affidavit from the respondents explaining their conduct.
In this case, it is apparent from a perusal of the order dated 10.11.2018 that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, the reply was not compared with the show- cause notice and no reasons have been mentioned why the appointing authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The Appointing Authority has to himself consider the culpability of the delinquent employee after the enquiry report is submitted and the show-cause notice is issued to which the explanation is given by the charge officer. The Enquiry Officer is only an agent of the Appointing Authority. The decision making authority has to itself apply its mind.
Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside with a direction to the Appointing Authority to consider the reply of the petitioner as given to the show-cause notice point-wise and then record his conclusion on each of the charges with regard to the culpability of the charged officer and then pass an appropriate order.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the Appointing Authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
Since the petitioner has already given a detailed reply and has also appeared before the Appointing Authority on 05.11.2018 and submitted his supplementary reply, it is not required for the Appointing Authority to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and ask for explanation while passing the fresh order.
The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 30.11.2018 VR