Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2870 (ALL)

Jagdev Prasad v. State of U. P.

2016-08-20

ANANT KUMAR, NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1705 of 2010 as also order dated 09 April 2014 passed by the Tribunal in Review Petition No. 08 of 2013 filed in claim petition No. 1705 of 2010. The petitioner in a departmental inquiry had been punished with the punishment order on dismissal from service, while he was working on the post of peon. 3. Being aggrieved with the punishment order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Secretariat Administration the petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal he filed a claim petition also before the Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal from service, the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition, therefore this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that no charge sheet was served on the petitioner, rather it was shown to be served upon his wife Smt. Anuradha on 27.06.1994, whereas she had expired in the year 1991. He asserted that no date, time and place was fixed in the inquiry nor were the statement of witnesses recorded, the petitioner was also not provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He has also contended that the charge sheet was not approved by the disciplinary authority rather it was approved by the inquiry officer who had no jurisdiction to approve the charge sheet. 5. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was registered as a case crime No. 18/85 under Sections 147/148/307/302 I.P.C., in the said case he was acquitted and further another case registered as case crime No. 175/90 under Sections 147/148/149/323/336/504/506 and 42 I.P.C, which is still pending trial. 6. The petitioner was charge sheeted on two grounds firstly, that he participated in the political agitation as officiating President of Shiv Sena and in Srikrishna Janambhumi Mukti Sena in violation of Rule-5 of Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956. Secondly, he became absent unauthorizedly from 25 May 1991 which was against the Sachivalaya Niyam Sangarsh Praster-40 of Vitya Niyam Sangrah Khand-2, Part-2/4 of Fundamental Rule 68, 73 and Sub-rule 97. 7. Secondly, he became absent unauthorizedly from 25 May 1991 which was against the Sachivalaya Niyam Sangarsh Praster-40 of Vitya Niyam Sangrah Khand-2, Part-2/4 of Fundamental Rule 68, 73 and Sub-rule 97. 7. In so far as the service of charge sheet upon the petitioner's wife Smt. Anuradha, who had already died, is concerned we found that except the show cause notice which was replied by the petitioner the service of charge sheet upon the petitioner is not proved as the respondent has shown the service of charge sheet upon her wife Smt. Anuradha on 27.06.1994, whereas she had died in 1991. 8. The petitioner had also submitted a death certificate, thus the charge sheet which was the basis of inquiry was not found to be served upon the petitioner. No doubt after conclusion of exparte inquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with inquiry report which was replied by the petitioner but that cannot be said to be the compliance of rules of inquiry. 9. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's claim with finding that the issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner was a sufficient compliance of service of charge sheet, whereas it was not so as has been observed above. Therefore, we quash the order impugned orders dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal and order dated 09 April 2014 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of punishment and remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh inquiry, by serving the charge sheet to the petitioner, denovo. 10. During the course of inquiry the petitioner status in service shall be as a suspended employee. It is provided that petitioner shall appear before the disciplinary authority along with the certified copy of this order within a week and shall receive the charge sheet and shall file reply thereof within next fifteen days. It is further provided that if the petitioner avoids to cooperate in the inquiry at any stage the benefit of the order would not be available to him. 11. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of finally.