OM PRAKASH CHAUHAN Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-38
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 01,2012

OM PRAKASH CHAUHAN Appellant
VERSUS
JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Tarun Agarwal J. - (1.) Heard Shri Alok Mahra, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri Manoj Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Accounts Deptt. and was Incharge of receiving the fees from the students. In an audit inquiry, the Auditor submitted a report to the Principal indicating that a sum of Rs. 44,509/- has not been entered in the cash book though receipt had been issued by the petitioner. Based on this audit report, the petitioner was suspended and, thereafter, a chargesheet dated 8th September, 1999 was issued indicating that the petitioner has embezzled the amount. The petitioner filed his reply and denied the charges and, thereafter disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report dated 3rd November, 1999. The recommendation of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by disciplinary authority and recommended dismissal of the petitioner which was forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Regional Joint Director for approval. The Regional Joint Director by its order 20th December, 1999 approved the recommendation of the disciplinary authority. Based on the approval, the order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal which was also rejected by an order dated 9th June, 2000. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds, namely, that the chargesheet was issued by the Inquiry Officer which was not approved by the disciplinary authority. Further, the inquiry report was not supplied by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary authority and no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided by the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was conducted ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing. Further, the disciplinary authority did not issue a show cause notice while recommending the order of dismissal and, lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had applied for change of the Inquiry Officer as in the opinion of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer was biased and that this application remained pending and it allowed the Inquiry Officer to continue with the proceedings and conclude the inquiry proceedings.;


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