MAHINDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Mahindra Pal Singh
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. -
(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
order dated 20.09.1999 and 17.01.1998 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4
respectively. Order dated 17.01.1998 is the first order passed by
respondent No. 4 whereby hefty amount of '2.00 lacs and odd is sought
to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was a Secretary,
Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. and he joined his services on
18.11.1994. The petitioner was charge -sheeted to recover a sum of '2.40 lacs. The petitioner replied to the charge -sheet denying all the charges.
In order to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding against him for taking
appropriate measure for alleged negligence in discharging of duty the
Enquiry Officer was appointed. In paragraph 12 it is specifically stated
by the petitioner that Enquiry Officer has not conducted any enquiry,
inasmuch as, neither any date has been fixed for the aforesaid purpose
nor has the petitioner been given an opportunity of personal hearing nor
any official on behalf of the Department has been produced to establish
the charge against him and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report
in the haste manner within a period of four days by merely examining the
records. Thus there has been a clear violation of principle of natural
justice and in fact, there is no enquiry in the eye of law. Basically the
aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer, consequently, the two orders of
punishments have been challenged in complete violation of principle of
natural justice as opportunity of hearing was not given.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit while dealing with the said statement in the writ petition, it has been merely stated that the petitioner has
been given full opportunity and he submitted his explanation on
05.06.1997. The Enquiry Officer considered the same before submission of his enquiry report. It is also said that the petitioner has not demanded
any personal hearing from the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while highlighting the above fact contends that the purported enquiry cannot stand to judicial
scrutiny as no hearing was given at all. No notice was served upon him.
From the enquiry report, it was levelled that good number of documents
relied on and copies of the same were not supplied to the petitioner.
Therefore, the enquiry report as well as all orders subsequent thereto
are to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh on the other hand contends that impugned order was issued after affording the
petitioner of opportunity of being heard. She says that petitioner did
not demand of hearing and considering his reply, order was passed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.