SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2,3, and 5 and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) On 18.06.2020, this Court passed the following order, which is reproduced below"- "Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2,3, and 5 and Sri Vivek Chaubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it prima facie appears that the impugned order has been passed without any sense of responsibility. Initially the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and by order dated 12.09.2011, the petitioner was reverted to lower pay scale and was also awarded censure entry. Against that order, petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 1857 of 2011 before the State Public Services Tribubnal, Lucknow, which was allowed by order dated 02.07.2012. The Tribunal set aside the order dated 12.09.2011 and granted liberty to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner afresh following the prescribed procedure. The inquiry was directed to be concluded within six months. Thereafter, the inquiry officer after concluding the inquiry, submitted the inquiry report on 31.05.2016. As per inquiry report, the charge Nos. 1,3,4 and 6 were found partly proved against the petitioner, while charges nos. 2 and 5 were not found proved. Supplementary Charge No. 1 was not found proved, while supplementary charge no.2 was found partly proved. The respondent no.1 on the basis of the inquiry report, issued office memorandum/show cause notice dated 29.06.2016 to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause as to why punishment under Rule 9(4) of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, may not be awarded. In the said notice, the respondent no.1 has wrongly mentioned the charge no.3 to have been found proved, although, it was found partly proved. The petitioner submitted reply in which he has also mentioned that despite being asked, the requisite papers were not provided to him. The impugned order dated 18.03.2020 has been passed by the respondent no.1 with the concurrence of the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service. Perusal of the impugned order, prima facie shows that it suffers from non-application of mind and carelessness. The respondent no.1 while passing the impugned order has not even taken pain to look into the records. The respondent no.1 has proceeded on the assumption that charges were found fully proved against the petitioner, whereas the charge nos. 1,3,4 and 6 of the main charge sheet have been found partly proved and charge no. 2 of the supplementary charge sheet has been found partly proved. The rest of charges were not found proved. Thus, the impugned order, prima facie, is based on non application of mind and in the result of careless approach. Put up tomorrow in the additional cause list. In the meantime, learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 may obtain instructions".
(3.) Today, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondent no.4 jointly submit that mistakenly the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 has been passed and, therefore, it may be quashed and liberty may be granted to authorities concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. They further jointly submit that cost may not be imposed.;