Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pushpendra Singh , who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4.
One month's time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit and thereafter three week's time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 through registered post with AD returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within a week.
List thereafter after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order before the State Public Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition on 24.11.2008 on the ground that oral inquiry was not held. Therefore, the order of dismissal was vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.
The State filed a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 434 of 2009, which was decided on 18.3.2009 . The High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal with the condition that the consequential benefit shall depend upon outcome of the fresh inquiry, if any.
The State of U.P. filed a SLP before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal on 1.10.2009 with an observation that disciplinary proceedings should be concluded within three months. The petitioner was reinstated by the respondents on 4th November, 2009 and was kept under suspension. The same Inquiry Officer, who had conducted the earlier inquiry, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On 26.11.2009 petitioner filed an application for change of the Inquiry Officer and another application was given on 14.12.2009 for change of the Inquiry Officer. On 29.12.2009 the State Government rejected the application of the petitioner for change of the Inquiry Officer. The State Government observed in the order that Inquiry Officer shall act cautiously. It appears that Inquiry Officer on 11.12.2009 submitted an inquiry report behind the back of the petitioner without holding any oral inquiry. The inquiry officer was required to hold the oral inquiry as the Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order on the ground that oral inquiry was not held by the Inquiry Officer. On 15.1.2010 inquiry report along with a show cause notice was given to the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 15.1.2010 on the ground that Inquiry Officer ought to have conducted inquiry proceedings after giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead oral evidence and inquiry report stood vitiated on the ground that oral inquiry was not held. Further the State Government on 29.12.2009 had observed that the Inquiry Officer would act cautiously and rejected the prayer for change of the Inquiry Officer and prior to it, the Inquiry Officer cannot conclude the inquiry proceedings.
Prima-facie it appears that the inquiry report as well as the show cause notice is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interim order.
Until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid his salary and allowances as admissible.
Order Date :- 18.6.2010 Salim