Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16051 of 2018 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Vijay Gautam on behalf of the sole respondent is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Gautam along with Sri Devendra Kumar Shukla for the respondent.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 14.7.2017 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in claim petition no. 1479 of 2013 (Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. & others). By the impugned order dated 14.7.2017 the Tribunal set aside the order of punishment dated 29.3.2005 by which the respondent employee was dismissed from service, appellate order dated 22.2.2006 and revisional order dated 15.12.2006. The Tribunal further directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages leaving it open to the petitioners to conduct the enquiry afresh within the time provided by the Tribunal.
Referring to paragraph 10 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that show cause notice and charge-sheet have not been served upon the respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 are absolutely incorrect in asmuch as the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2004 was sent to the respondent employee through special messenger and the respondent himself received the same on 09.05.2004, which is clear from the documents filed at page 27 & 34 of the writ petition which bears the signature of the respondent of having received the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the copy of the charge- sheet was also sent through registered post but the receipt is not available on record.
On the contrary, Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that no notice whatsoever was served on the respondent and the person who is alleged to have served the show cause notice and charge-sheet was never produced in the inquiry nor his affidavit was produced before the Tribunal to prove that he had indeed served the show notice as well as charge-sheet on the respondent.
This fact has not been disputed by Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. While allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal has categorically held that no evidence was produced by which it could be proved that copy of the show cause notice as well as charge-sheet was served on the respondent employee.
It is also important to note that the proof of postal receipt of the same was also not produced by the petitioners before the Tribunal.
Such being the state of affairs, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. However, the directions given by the Tribunal to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent back in service with full back wages could not have been passed after observing that the principles of natural justice were not followed and there was violation of the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991 as the respondent was under suspension during the pendency of the inquiry.
We, therefore, modify the order of the Tribunal dated 14.7.2017 to the extent that the respondent shall remain under suspension till conclusion of the inquiry. The respondent shall appear before the disciplinary authority on 13 August, 2018 along with certified copy of this order on which date the disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the show cause notice as well as charge-sheet upon the respondent - Mahendra Pratap Singh. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall proceed with the inquiry pending against the respondent and conclude the same within a further period of three months in accordance with law.
It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment will be granted to any of the parties.
With the aforesaid modifications and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 nd