- (1.) The petitioner who was posted as a Lekhpal in Kshetra - Nakela, Tehsil - Biswan, District - Sitapur was suspended on 26. 11. 1991. A charge sheet issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan District - Sitapur was served upon him on 31. 12. 1991. Upon receiving the charge sheet on 2. 1. 1992, the petitioner prayed for time for submitting his reply on 16. 1. 1992. When in the meantime on 10. 2. 1992, the enquiry office who was appointed by the Sub Divisional Officer, namely, the Naib Tehsildar Biswan, Sri Virendra Bahadur had lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner, he submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Biswan with a request that the enquiry officer, namely, Sri Virendra Bahadur be changed. This application was filed by the petitioner on 17. 2. 1992. However, on 18. 2. 1992 Sri Virendra Bahadur, who was sought to be changed, in pursuance of the earlier application filed by the petitioner for the extension of time, extended the time to file the reply to the charge sheet up to 25. 2. 1992. However, this letter never reached the petitioner and, therefore, while the petitioner was still waiting for the extension of time to submit his reply and also for the change of the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and on 24. 3. 1992 submitted his report. Based on the enquiry report, the punishing authority, that is, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan, in his turn passed an order of dismissal on 23. 5. 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court by means of a writ petition being Service Bench No. 239 of 1992 which was disposed of by an order dated 14. 12. 2017 with a direction that the Appellate Authority was to decide the appeal within a period of one month from the passing of the order of the High Court. When the Appellate Court on 31. 3. 2018 dismissed the appeal, the instant writ petition was filed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 23. 5. 1992 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Biswan and the Appellate order dated 31. 3. 2018 essentially on the following grounds:- I. If the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were perused it was evident that they were absolutely vague. The charge no. 1 had implicated the petitioner with a charge that he had violated a certain code of conduct. It had stated that as per the Rules, the petitioner could not have participated in the activities of any political party but no rule has been cited. By the charge no. 2 it was stated that on 25. 11. 1991, in a rally held in Ramleela Maindan, Kasba, Biswan, District Sitapur wherein some political leaders, namely, Rewati Raman Singh, Ram Poojan Patel, Ramnaresh Kushwaha, Kaushal Kishore and Shiv Sewak Dixit etc. were present, the petitioner was also sitting on the dais. It has been further stated that the petitioner had read a certain demand letter from the dais. The charges no. 1 and 2, therefore, stated that the petitioner was involved in certain political activities. The charge no. 3 was to the effect that the petitioner had not done any work connected with his area and that there was no contribution of the petitioner towards the family welfare schemes. By charge no. 4 it was alleged that some allotment of land was also not done by the petitioner. The charge no. 5 was a reiteration of charge no. 2.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the charges indicated as to which particular Rule or Law, the petitioner had violated by participating in the political activity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner had never participated in any political activity yet it was not clear from the charges that which Rule was violated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of the charges no. 3 and 4 also did not indicate as to where was the shortcoming in his performance so far as the various schemes were concerned. He submits that the charges did not make it clear as to which land was not allotted by the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was vitiated on account of the fact that the charges were not clear. II. When the petitioner had asked for time and the enquiry officer had not responded and in fact the enquiry officer on 10. 2. 1992 had lodged a first information report against the petitioner then upon the prayer of the petitioner, the enquiry officer should have got himself changed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a person who was himself implicating the petitioner in a criminal case should not have been trusted with the enquiry which was being conducted by him. When the first information report was lodged by the enquiry officer himself against the petitioner and when the petitioner had objected to the same then the petitioner could not have trusted his life with the enquiry officer who had himself lodged the first information report against the petitioner. ,;