Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1222 (ALL)

Jai Bhagwan Dixit v. State of U. P.

2005-07-11

RAKESH SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. Through the present writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.1990, removing the Petitioner from service. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that at the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as Cooperative Inspector Grade I at Gonda. In connection with some charges, he was suspended on 8.3.1978 and a charge-sheet dated 17.10.1979, containing 13 charges was served on him. The Petitioner was not provided with the relevant documents, as such he could not give a reply to the charge-sheet. A show cause notice had also been issued against the Petitioner. On the basis of the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the Petitioner was awarded a major penalty of removal from service on 15.11.1980. This order was assailed by the Petitioner by filing a W.P. No. 3972 of 1980. This Court had quashed the order dated 15.11.1980 and had given the liberty to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the Petitioner in accordance with law. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the appointing authority on 7.10.1988 to take further orders, if any. 4. Accordingly, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. had decided to hold de novo inquiry against the Petitioner under the provisions of Rule 55 of C.C.A. Rules. A formal order was passed on 2.12.1988 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for initiating the inquiry and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Meerut was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the formal regular inquiry against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was treated under suspension and attached in the office of District Assistant Registrar, Gonda. The Petitioner was directed by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 8.12.1988 to take part in the inquiry and submit his reply to the charge-sheet. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner was not supplied with the documents despite repeated requests and was also not allowed opportunity of hearing. The Inquiry Officer thus had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He was not paid subsistence allowance regularly, However, some payment was made but it was in the old pay scale. The Petitioner's request for supply of the documents and inspection of the record was turned down by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer thus had not afforded opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He was not paid subsistence allowance regularly, However, some payment was made but it was in the old pay scale. The Petitioner's request for supply of the documents and inspection of the record was turned down by the Inquiry Officer. No show cause notice nor any inquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner and suddenly the order of removal was passed against the Petitioner on 5.7.1990. The findings are erroneous. The order of removal is a non-speaking order. In fact all the charges were unfounded. The provisions contained in the C.C.A. Rules and in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, have been flagrantly violated by the opposite parties. 6. The learned standing counsel has opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that a fresh departmental inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was sent several letters, allowing him opportunity of inspecting the documents. The documents were also supplied and subsistence allowance was paid to him in accordance with the relevant rules. The Petitioner has received 33 copies of the documents on 19.4.1989. A deadline of 31.5.1989 was fixed for submission of his reply. The Petitioner was kept informed of all the dates fixed by the Inquiry Officer. In fact the Petitioner had not cooperated with the Inquiry Officer. The Petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing and after completing the departmental trial the order dated 5.7.1990, awarding penalty of removal from service was issued against the Petitioner. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the present case, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3972 of 1980 had directed the Petitioner to appear before the appropriate authority on 7.10.1988. Accordingly, the de novo inquiry was started against the Petitioner. The record reveals that the Petitioner was sent several letters to cooperate with the Inquiry Officer. He was also provided with the copies of the documents and on 19.4.1989, the Petitioner had received 33 certified copies of the documents cited in the charge-sheet. He was also allowed opportunity of inspecting the documents. The Petitioner had firstly sought time on 15.7.1985 for submission of his reply to the charge-sheet but later on he refused to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. He was also allowed opportunity of inspecting the documents. The Petitioner had firstly sought time on 15.7.1985 for submission of his reply to the charge-sheet but later on he refused to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. In the circumstances of the case, there was no justification for the Petitioner for not submitting his reply to the charge-sheet. Thus, after obtaining 33 copies of the documents on 19.4.1989, he did not submit his reply to the charge-sheet. It appears that he was avoiding to submit the reply to the charge-sheet with a motive to manufacture the grounds for future contemplated litigation. The material available on record of the writ petition indicates that the Petitioner was kept associated with the inquiry. He was also given liberty of personal hearing on 28.7.1989. The Inquiry Officer had specifically informed the Petitioner about the date of hearing and fixing 15.8.1989 as deadline for submission of the reply. The Petitioner had also learnt about this deadline. The Inquiry Officer had responded to the letters submitted by the Petitioner on 11.8.1989, fixing 1.9.1989 as the last date of personal hearing. The departmental inquiry was fixed on 31.12.1988, 31.1.1989, 15.3.1989, 31.5.1989, 15.7.1989 and 15.8.1989 and again 12.2.1990 was fixed as the last date for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The punishing authority had waited upto this date and when the Petitioner did not cooperate and submit his reply, the departmental inquiry was concluded on 5.7.1990. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow had passed the order of penalty, removing the Petitioner from the services on 5.7.1990. Even during this period neither the Petitioner submitted his reply nor presented himself before the Inquiry Officer for personal hearing. Thus, the opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner. Several dates were fixed by the Inquiry Officer to enable the Petitioner to put forth his defence. The Petitioner had been deliberately avoiding to cooperate with the Inquiry Officer. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions. I have gone through the judgments cited by the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these judgments shall not be applicable as in the present case the Petitioner himself avoided to avail the opportunity afforded to him by the Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority. I have gone through the judgments cited by the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, these judgments shall not be applicable as in the present case the Petitioner himself avoided to avail the opportunity afforded to him by the Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority. (1) Om Prakash Misra v. State of U.P. 1985 (3) LCD 109; (2) Avadhesh Chandra Saxena v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. and Ors. 1994 (1) HVD (All) 99 ; (3) Kailash Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 (1) AWC 40 : 1996 (2) LBESR 181 ; (4) Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Co-op. Spg. Mils Federation Ltd., Kanpur and another, (1999) 4 AWC 3227 and (5) Managing Director, U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation and Another Vs. Radhey Shyam, (2004) 4 AWC 3298 . 10. I have gone through the impugned order dated 5.7.1990, It is a well considered, reasoned and speaking order. Out of 13, 12 charges were found proved against the Petitioner. His integrity was also found to be doubtful. These documents were based on documentary evidence, which were made available to the Petitioner. Since the charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer, the Petitioner has rightly been removed from the service by the appointing authority, i.e. the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. The impugned order is just, legal, valid and appropriate order. 11. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I would like to quote the following passage from the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Sarin. H.C. v. Union of India, 1976 (2) SLR 248 . The rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so as to avoid the consequences.