MAHINDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-12-90
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 03,2012

Mahindra Pal Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.