Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. - (1.) To assail correctness of the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in appeal and order dated 29.08.2019 passed in review application passed by Commissioner/Chairman, Meerut Region Meerut, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut-respondent no.1 and order dated 23.06.2018 passed by Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, District Meerut-respondent no.2 (Annexure Nos.22, 19 and 14 respectively), this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred.
(2.) In a nut-sell, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in the office of Meerut Development Authority in the year 1983. On 17.08.2018, one Sri Baijnath posted as Additional Secretary, Meerut Development Authority lodged a complaint (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) in Police Station Meerut at about 11.30 a.m. alleging that when the officers of the authority were busy in meeting, at that time, some of the members of the Meerut Development Authority Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") entered into the office and started shouting slogan and also misbehaved with the officers, as a result of which, work was hampered about half an hours. On the basis of said complaint, on the same day, first information report was lodged under Sections 342 and 353 of I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut ((Annexure No.2 to the writ petition) for causing hindrance in government work. It is alleged that in the said FIR, the petitioner was not named. In pursuance of the said FIR, the respondent no.2-Vice Chairman Meerut Development Authority on 19.06.2017 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) passed an order by which the petitioner was suspended on the ground that in the said incident he was involved. On 21.08.2017, the Enquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut sent a charge-sheet dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) with the charge that petitioner without permission entered into the office of Vice Chairman and started shouting slogans and misbehaved with senior official and also caused hindrance in official work, and as such, violates the rules provided under U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Copy of charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.08.2017 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). As a consequence, the petitioner has filed his reply on 21.08.2017 before Inquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. The Inquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report on 23.09.2017 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) in which no credible evidence was found against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman rejected the Enquiry Report on 28.09.2017 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) with the direction to the Inquiry Officer to issue a fresh charge sheet alongwith evidence. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer issued amended charge sheet on 17.10.2017 containing two charges (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition). Against the amended charge sheet, on the same day i.e. on 17.10.2017, the petitioner has filed his reply (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition). Upon reply submitted by the petitioner, the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority passed the order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) by which the suspension order dated 19.06.2017 was revoked with the direction the the departmental enquiry will continue.
(3.) It is further alleged that when suspension order was revoked, the Inquiry Officer again submitted amended Enquiry Report dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition) holding that since the suspension order has been revoked, as such, Inquiry Officer drawn conclusion that since no criminal case was lodged against the petitioner, he is guilty only for minor misconduct. The Enquiry Officer/Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority submitted his enquiry report before the Vice Chairman on 20.06.2019 (Annexure No.13 to the writ petition) stating that suspension of the petitioner was revoked by order dated 28.09.2017 since no criminal case was lodged against the petitioner. Neither he misbehaved with the officer nor he shouted slogan and also he did not use any foul language as such he is guilty for minor misconduct. The Vice Chairman passed the order dated 23.06.2018 holding guilty of misconduct as provided under U.P. Government Servants and punished the petitioner as under: i. Suspension period wages and allowances will not be payable. ii. Adverse entry in service record is to be made. iii. If in future petitioner repeats the same he will be terminated ex-parte. iv. The petitioner will not be posted on important work/table. ;