- (1.) Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Srivastava for respondents. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad inflicting punishment of reversion to the lowest initial pay-scale and awarding adverse entry as well as order dated 19th February, 2007 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissing the appeal, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Clerk in Nagar Nigam, Allahabad w. e. f. 4.2.1985. On 3.5.2005, he was served with a charge-sheet levelling certain charges in contemplation of a departmental enquiry and was required to submit reply within 15 days. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.7.2005 denying the charges levelled' against him. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet dated 24.6.2005 was also served. Petitioner again submitted his reply dated 16.7.2005 denying the said charges. Shri K. D. Singh, Assistant Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer is alleged to have conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated 9.8.2005 to the effect that charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Respondent No. 1, Nagar Ayukta, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad issued a show-cause notice dated 11.8.2005 requiring the petitioner to submit a reply as to why major penalty of dismissal of service may not be inflicted. Petitioner again submitted a reply dated 23.9.2005. After considering the same, respondent No. 1, Nagar Ayukta, Allahabad passed the impugned order dated 21.7.2006 inflicting major penalty of reverting the petitioner back to the lowest pay-scale and recording adverse entry in his service book. Petitioner went up in appeal which has also been dismissed.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after reply of the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner, no formal inquiry was held against him, rather straight-away an inquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings. It has further been submitted that after submission of the reply of the charge-sheet by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer never issued any notice nor fixed any date, time and place for enquiry. He never examined any witness to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet, inasmuch as the petitioner was never asked to cross-examine any such witness, if so examined by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer without holding any formal and full fledged enquiry and without adhering to procedure prescribed by the Service Rules, not only amounts to violation of the Rules but is also directly in the teeth of the principles of natural justice. Categorical averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition.;