HRISHIKESH ROY,J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh to challenge the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.2942 of 2007 where under the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the Order of dismissal dated 23.06.2006 (passed by the District Magistrate) and also the appellate Order dated 06.11.2006 approving the disciplinary action passed by the Commissioner. The High Court further issued direction for reinstatement of the respondent in service within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed by it.
(2.) The respondent joined service with the State Government in the year 1976 and faced disciplinary action at a stage when he was serving as a Chief Revenue Accountant in District Etawah, Uttar Pradesh. He was suspended on 2.2.2006 and the disciplinary action was initiated on the grounds that respondent was disobeying his superiors, not conducting official duties properly and making false allegation against higher officers. On 23.2.2006 charge memo was issued against the delinquent officer and he was, inter alia, charged with misconduct, illegal gratification, negligence of High Court proceedings, baseless allegation against superior officers etc.
(3.) In course of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent asked for certain documents for his defence but the same could not be provided to him. Learned Judge accordingly concluded that prejudice was caused to the respondent for non-disclosure of the documents which would have facilitated the delinquent employee to defend the charges levelled against him. The Court also referred to the violation of the UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") in conducting the Disciplinary Proceeding. With such finding, it was concluded by the learned Judge that the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings. He was also not allowed to show cause on the proposed penalty. Consequently, the rules of natural justice were violated and on that basis, the High Court interfered with the disciplinary action and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent.;