V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court questioning the validity of order passed by District Judge, Hathras awarding punishment of withholding two annual increments on permanent basis, and the order of its affirmance in appeal on administrative side by this Court.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Petitioner was posted as Central Nazir in Hathras Judgeship. In August, 2006 on a theft of Alternator (a part of Generator) being reported, the watchman on duty, namely, Vijay Kumar was suspended and departmental enquiry was ordered against him. On the same charge, Petitioner was also asked to submit his explanation as to why he did not make surprise inspections at least twice in a month in compliance of the order dated 25.02.2006 passed by District Judge. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.08.2006, specifically stating therein that the order of District Judge had neither been served upon him nor was it brought to his notice. In support of his explanation, he annexed certificate issued by Sadar Munsarim certifying that the order dated 25.02.2006 had not been made available to the Petitioner. Thereafter, District Judge vide order dated 10.08.2006 directed to hold enquiry against the Petitioner and enquiry was entrusted to Sri D.C. Singh, Additional District Judge. The Enquiry Officer served charge sheet to the Petitioner on 24.08.2006. Since the papers on which reliance was placed were not supplied to the Petitioner, as such he made an application for supply of the papers. However, said papers were not supplied to the Petitioner, and Petitioner was constrained to file reply. The Enquiry Officer without fixing any date, time or place of the enquiry and without intimating the Petitioner about the said enquiry submitted exparte report holding the Petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. Relying on the said report, District Judge on 28.02.2007 passed order awarding punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by order of the District Judge, Petitioner preferred review petition before the District Judge raising objection that the procedure prescribed for conducting departmental enquiry has not been followed and adhered to, as such enquiry was vitiated. Petitioner also took plea that the punishment awarded to him falls under the category of 'major punishment' in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh, as such it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to have followed the procedure laid down in the Rules for holding departmental enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the review petition on the ground that it had no power of review. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred appeal to the High Court, which has also been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, as such present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case major punishment had been awarded without undertaking and following the procedure prescribed for holding regular departmental enquiry and at no point of time any date, time or place had been fixed, and thus enquiry was vitiated, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.;