Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 124 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Jothan Ram Patel

2008-01-18

DEVI PRASAD SINGH, V.K.DHAON

body2008
JUDGMENT (U.K. DHAON and DEVI PRASAD SINGH, JJ. ) Heard the learned Standing counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.K. Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated December 17, 1997 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow, by which the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No. 1 was allowed and the punishment order was quashed with liberty to the petitioners to start de novo proceeding against the opposite party No. 1 from the stage of supplying the copy of the inquiry report if they are so advised. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 1 on the basis of charges was placed under suspension by the order dated July 21, 1982. The petitioners thereafter served the charge-sheet dated October 12, 1983 upon the opposite party No. 1. An FIR was also lodged against the opposite party No. 1 under Section 409 IPC. In• spite of sufficient opportunity afforded to the opposite party No. 1 by the inquiry officer, no reply was submitted by the opposite party No. 1. The inquiry officer thereafter submitted the inquiry report and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the order dated June 22, 1984 by which the opposite 2 party No. I was dismissed from service. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the State Public Services Tribunal in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, has quashed the punishment order which was passed against the opposite party No. 1 on the basis of material on record. He further submits that in spite of sufficient opportunity which was afforded to the opposite party No. 1 by the inquiry officer, no reply to the charge-sheet was filed by the opposite party No. 1 and as it was a case of admission, no further inquiry was needed in the given facts and circumstances. He further submits that a criminal case was also pending against the opposite party No. 1 when the dismissal order was passed and there is no illegality in the dismissal order. 5. He further submits that a criminal case was also pending against the opposite party No. 1 when the dismissal order was passed and there is no illegality in the dismissal order. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that there is no illegality in the judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal and even if no reply was submitted by the opposite party No. 1 to the charge-sheet, the inquiry officer was under an obligation to hold an inquiry in accordance with law and since no witnesses were examined by the petitioners to prove the charges, contained in the charge-sheet, the dismissal order was illegal and the same has rightly been quashed by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has relied upon the decisions in RK. Singh v. Director/Appointing Authority. G.B. Pant Social Science Institute, Jhusi, Allahabad 2001 (89) FLR 1121 (AIL), Sub hash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and Another 2000-I-LLJ-990 (All), Anil Kumarv. Presiding Officer and Others AIR 1985 SC 1121 : (1985) 3 SCC 378 : 1986-I-LLJ-l and Radhey Kant Khare v. UP. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. 2003-II-LLJ-725 (All) 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and o gone through the record. 8. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite party No. 1 was placed under suspension by the order dated July 21, 1982. It is also admitted case of the parties that a charge-sheet dated October 12, 1983 was served upon the opposite party No. 1 and in spite of sufficient time granted by the enquiry officer no reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the opposite party No.1. The inquiry officer on the basis of the charges leveled in the charge-sheet, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and thereafter the disciplinary authority without issuing any show cause notice to the opposite party No.1, has passed the dismissal order dated June 22, 1984. The State Public Services Tribunal relying upon the decision in the case of B.P. Chaurasia v. State of UP. and Others 1983 (1) LCD 169 has allowed the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No. I and quashed the punishment order. The State Public Services Tribunal relying upon the decision in the case of B.P. Chaurasia v. State of UP. and Others 1983 (1) LCD 169 has allowed the claim petition preferred by the opposite party No. I and quashed the punishment order. This Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and Another (supra), has held that even if the employee refuses to participate in the inquiry, the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him but he must hold an ex parte inquiry where evidence must be led as a dismissal order has serious consequences and should be passed only after complying with the rules of natural justice. 9. We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. It shall be open for the petitioners to hold fresh inquiry in accordance with law keeping in view the judgment passed by the State Public Services Tribunal.