V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 20.09.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Aligarh dispensing with the services of Petitioner and the order of its affirmance in appeal dated 04.05.2009 passed by Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the Petitioner had been performing and discharging his duties as collection amin. An F.I.R. was lodged against him on 17.02.2007 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act at police station Quarsi. He was arrested and sent to jail on 18.02.2007. Tehsildar and the Sub -Divisional Magistrate conducted enquiry, submitted report and recommended for placing the Petitioner under suspension and taking department proceeding against him. Thereafter, Petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.02.2007. He was enlarged on bail on 16.04.2007, and thereafter under the orders of the District Magistrate, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate was asked to conduct enquiry. Thereafter, Petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 10.04.2007, to which Petitioner submitted his reply on 10.05.2007. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 15.05.2007. On 05.06.2007 show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for stopping one increment for one year and further for awarding censor entry in his service record. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 12.09.2007. It appears that Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the enquiry and he directed for denovo enquiry vide letter dated 21.06.2007. Thereafter, enquiry had been held and report submitted on 17.08.2007. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 31.08.2007, to which Petitioner also submitted his reply, and thereafter order of dispensation has been passed on 20.09.2007. Petitioner preferred appeal and the same has been rejected. At this juncture, Petitioner has approached this Court through the instant writ petition. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case major penalty has been awarded without holding any regular departmental enquiry, inasmuch as, at no point of time any date, time or place has been fixed for holding enquiry in the matter by the Enquiry Officer , as such action taken is bad.;