Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 326 (ALL)

RAM DHANI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-02-12

BHARATI SAPRU

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order dated 22.3.2000 passed by the respondent No. 3-Deputy District Magistrate, Bindki, District Fatehpur and the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2-the Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur. 3. By the first order, punishments have been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as a Lekhpal, has suffered punishment of salary, being reverted to original pay scale. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of any emoluments other than the suspension allowance, for a period of suspension and, thirdly, adverse entry has been recorded on the service book of the petitioner. Against these orders of punishments, the petitioner filed an appeal to the respondent No. 2 under Rule 12 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the respondent No. 2-the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and has confirmed the three orders of punishment against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Lekhpal in Tehsil-Bindki, District Fatehpur. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 3.11.1999, by which, two allegations were made against the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s contention that the charge-sheet, which was issued against the petitioner, was not supported by the evidence, which was to be used against the petitioner or the list of witnesses, which should have been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner states that he made a demand for the evidence which was to be used against him, but was not given an evidence and, therefore, he has written reply on 17.11.1999. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had proceeded with the matter without conducting any enquiry and concluded proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the written reply given by him. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 2.3.2000. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 13.3.2000 and the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 22.3.2000 imposing three punishments as aforesaid. (1) Reversion of the original pay scale (2) No salary or emoluments to be paid for the period of suspension except the suspension allowance. (3) Regarding adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 13.3.2000 and the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 22.3.2000 imposing three punishments as aforesaid. (1) Reversion of the original pay scale (2) No salary or emoluments to be paid for the period of suspension except the suspension allowance. (3) Regarding adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner took recourse to the filing of appeal under Section 11 of the Rules of 1999. The memo of appeal-dated 10.5.2000 is on record and in that memo; the petitioner has taken a specific plea that the proceedings were concluded against the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the matter. This plea was specifically taken in paragraph-6 of the memo of appeal. The petitioner, therefore, states that the appeal has been decided in violation to the provisions of Rule 7(vii) of the Rules of 1999 which are quoted herein below : “(vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence, which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence : Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness.” 7. The petitioner has further contended that although the charge-sheet mentioned the documents, on the basis of which the charge-sheet had been issued, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner without necessary documents. The petitioner has placed on record his reply to the charge-sheet dated 17.11.1999 in which he has specifically stated that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the documents, on the basis of which, the charge-sheet had been issued. 8. The charge-sheet had not only been issued, on the basis of documents but also on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Aizazuddin, who was also not called as witness in the matter. 9. 8. The charge-sheet had not only been issued, on the basis of documents but also on the basis of a complaint made by one Shri Aizazuddin, who was also not called as witness in the matter. 9. In reply to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel has argued that the charge-sheet, which was issued to the petitioner itself, mentioned that in case the petitioner wished to examine any witnesses, he had been allowed to propose the name of the witnesses whom he wished to examine, but the petitioner did not do so. 10. The petitioner’s contention is that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet, is not denied by the State in its counter-affidavit. Since the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the documents on which the charge-sheet placed reliance, how could the petitioner have proposed the name of the witnesses? 11. A complete reading of Rule 7 makes it abundantly clear that the documents on which the charge-sheet is passed should be enclosed alongwith the charge-sheet. This was not done. Rule 7 sub-rule (iii) clearly contemplates this. 12. Having perused the materials on record and having heard learned Counsel for both sides, it becomes clear that in this matter, provisions of Rule 7 read in total, have not been complied, which has also lead to the failure of the rules of natural justice, as clearly the enquiry was concluded against the petitioner without due compliance of the rules of natural justice, which was embodied in the procedure laid down under Rule-7. 13. Even though the petitioner had specifically taken a plea in paragraph-6 of the memo of appeal that the enquiry was concluded ex parte, the appellate authority has not written anything in this aspect of the matter also. 14. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State, and having perused the materials on record, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not offered a complete opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has passed the order in appeal without proper consideration of the rules embodied in Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 15. The appellate order dated 13.9.2004 is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter of the petitioner. The appellate authority has passed the order in appeal without proper consideration of the rules embodied in Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 15. The appellate order dated 13.9.2004 is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter of the petitioner. The appellate authority will re-consider the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 16. The writ petition is disposed of. ————