V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present case, petitioner has rushed to this Court with request to quash the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by Director, Social Welfare, U.P. Lucknow, directing reversion of the petitioner on the minimum pay scale and for recovery of the amount in question together with censor entry.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that the petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Assistant Clerk in the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Kanpur Dehat. In respect of various serious irregularities having been committed by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.04.2000 and he was directed to be attached with the Office of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Against the order of suspension petitioner succeeded in getting interim order on 11.05.2000. In compliance of the same, order of suspension was stayed on 13.07.2000. Thereafter, Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Jhansi Division, Jhansi was replaced and in his place Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Head Quarter was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Charge sheet was issued on 09.09.2000 levelling two charges against the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that again on 26.09.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension and on the same day another charge sheet was issued and for this purpose Additional District Development Officer, Head Quarter was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter another Inquiry Officer was appointed on 25.09.2001. As there were two separate departmental proceedings, it was decided on administrative side to get both the disciplinary proceedings inquired by one Inquiry Officer, and accordingly, Additional Director, Social Welfare, Head Quarter was appointed as Inquiry Officer. As there was delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, on 24.10.2002 an order was passed reinstating the petitioner in service, and thereafter, Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Kanpur Division, Kanpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who appears to have submitted his report on 23.11.2009. As per the said report charges mentioned in charge sheet dated 22.04.2000 could not be substantiated, whereas charges mentioned in charge sheet dated 28.09.2000 were substantiated. Thereafter on 05.02.2010 based on the said enquiry report, notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his services be not dispensed with. Thereafter, petitioner asked for certain documents, which were supplied to him. Petitioner had also been asked to peruse some documents. Thereafter, information was sent on 18.05.2011 that the petitioner had been asked to peruse the documents, but he did not peruse the same. To the show cause notice, petitioner submitted his reply and requested for his reinstatement. Thereafter order impugned has been passed. At this juncture, petitioner has rushed to this Court. Sri Islam Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated before this Court that the enquiry report is farce, as after submitting reply no date has been fixed and based on the reply submitted, without holding enquiry opinion of guilt has been formed, and the Disciplinary Authority without fixing any date, time or place has concluded the proceedings against the petitioner, which is in breach of the principles of equity and fair play, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter, which need not be interfered with.;