Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) HEARD Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 15.1.2007 whereby the District Magistrate, Deoria imposed major penalty of reduction in rank, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and withholding of integrity and the appellate order dated 24.10.2007 rejecting his appeal, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The basic submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that various documents which he submitted in defence have been excluded or rejected only on the ground that though are official documents, but neither original nor certified copies of those documents made available, hence are inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that Evidence Act is not applicable in departmental inquiry and so long as genuinity of official documents, which are submitted by petitioner, was not doubted, the same cannot be ignored only on the ground that the same was not original or certified copy. He also drew my attention to the letter dated 7. 12. 2006 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Deoria whereby copies of 14 documents were supplied to petitioner and at serial No. 6 is a copy of the report of Naib Tahsildar, Barhaj dated 14.2.2006 mentioned. He submitted that the documents being official and was made available to petitioner by the respondents themselves, there was no occasion for the inquiry officer to exclude the said document merely by observing that it was not admissible in evidence and thereby prejudicing the defence of petitioner and holding charges proved against him, hence it vitiates the entire proceedings. The inquiry report was submitted by excluding the substantial defence of petitioner on all the charges which if not completely destroyed the case of the department, otherwise would have sufficiently shown that the petitioner could not be held guilty of any of the charges. He also submitted that spot inspection report which the petitioner obtained from another Lekhpal due to absence of concerned Lekhpal, Sri Parma Yadav being absent on that particular date has been discarded on the ground that petitioner was not competent to grant leave to a Lekhpal hence sanction of leave to Sri Parma Yadav on 11.11.2005 was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the documents, reports and orders whatever in respect to the said report of Lekhpal concerned, none can be taken into account. He referred to the averments made in para 19 of the writ petition that being his immediate boss he is superior authority and was capable to sanction casual leave and also referred to para 13 of the counter-affidavit wherein there is only a bare denial and is not stated under which provision the petitioner could not have granted such leave to his immediate subordinate officer. He submitted that the authorities, therefore, having erred in law and recorded a finding which is perverse and, therefore, the entire proceedings are in violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the relevance of valid defence of petitioner has been ignored. Learned Standing Counsel in defence sought to refer the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of respondents and submitted that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law and no interference is called for.
(3.) THE facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was charged of issuing residential certificate to one Km. Sandhya Kushwaha who claim to be the resident of Village Dhanauti Mathiya, Tehsil Rudrapur, District Deoria though as a matter of fact she was actually resident of Barhaj. In respect to the aforesaid transaction a charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on 14.8.2006 by the District Magistrate, Deoria. THE petitioner submitted his reply to inquiry officer (Tehsildar Salempur, District Deoria) on 4.10.2006 denying all the charges. THE inquiry officer did not hold any oral inquiry and on the basis of charge-sheet and the reply submitted by petitioner, submitted his report on 11.10.2006 holding all the charged proved. Some of the documents submitted by petitioner in his defence alongwith his reply were discarded by inquiry officer on the ground that the employee concerned has not submitted original or certified copies of those documents. A show cause notice alongwith inquiry report was issued to petitioner on 29.10.2006. THE petitioner thereafter made an application dated 20.11.2006 to the respondents to give certified copies of relied on documents and some others, pursuant whereto 14 documents were made available to him alongwith letter dated 7.12.2006. THEreafter the petitioner submitted his reply on 18.12.2006. THE disciplinary authority rejecting his reply passed the punishment order dated 15. 1. 2007 and appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 24.10.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the report of Naib Tehsildar, Barhaj submitted on 14.2.2006 proved that Km. Sandhya Kushwaha was a resident of Barhaj. All the defence of petitioner has been ignored by inquiry officer only by observing that petitioner has not submitted original or certified copy of said documents but only a photocopy has been given. He further pointed out that the inquiry which the petitioner got conducted from Lekhpal on 11. 11. 2005 has been doubted on the ground that the concerned area Lekhpal was absent and despite the petitioner being not competent to sanction his leave he authorised another Lekhpal to make inspection and submit report which was unauthorised. It is contended that there is no provision which says that the petitioner was not competent to sanction leave to Lekhpal working under his jurisdiction and directly subordinate to petitioner.;