Decided on February 28,2013

STATE OF U P Appellant
KUNDAN SINGH Respondents


BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) CERTAIN allegations were levelled against respondent no. 1, a U.P. State Government Employee, in respect whereof respondent no. 1 had written a letter. Subsequently, that letter was withdrawn. Soon thereafter, respondent no. 1 was charge -sheeted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent no. 1 denied the charge. Accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer purported to conclude the inquiry solely on the basis of that letter. No witness was examined by the Inquiry Officer and, even if examined, no opportunity of cross examining them was given to respondent no. 1. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed respondent no. 1 from service. On an approach made by respondent no. 1, the Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the present writ petition. The same was admitted, but prayer for stay of the whole order of the Tribunal was refused. The Honble Allahabad High Court only stayed that part of the order of the Tribunal, which directed the payment of back wages. Subsequent thereto, the writ petition was transferred to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court on 2nd September, 2003 passed yet another interim order on the writ petition and directed the writ petitioners to reinstate respondent no. 1 with effect from 1st September, 2003. Aggrieved by the said interim order dated 2nd September, 2003, the State of Uttaranchal moved to Honble Supreme Court but by the order dated 5th February 2007, the Honble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the direction for reinstatement subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, but, at the same time, stayed the direction for payment of back wages until disposal of the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. No one is appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1.
(3.) THE question is, whether the order of Tribunal quashing the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing respondent no. 1 is interfereable or not? It is not in dispute that the letter, which purportedly contained admission, was withdrawn by respondent no. 1 even before the disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing the charge -sheet. Therefore, while there was a purported admission, there was also a withdrawal thereof. In a circumstance of that nature, was it not necessary for the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to permit respondent no. 1 to substantiate that his withdrawal was sustainable? This opportunity having not been given, neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority could rely upon the said purported admission. In the event, the purported admission is taken away, there is nothing on record of the disciplinary proceeding, which would suggest that the charges levelled against respondent no. 1 stand otherwise proved. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the order of Tribunal, by which the disciplinary order dismissing respondent no. 1 was set aside. In the circumstance, the question is, whether respondent no. 1 was entitled to back wages?;

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