S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was Assistant Store Purchase Officer in the department of Sanjai Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, aggrieved against the order of his removal from service, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly on the grounds that the copy of the preliminary enquiry report which was relied upon by the Inquiry Officer was not furnished to him; the evidence and the finding does not relate to the charge; the defence of the petitioner was not considered by the Inquiry Officer; the Inquiry Officer did not record any evidence except the petitioner and submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority and lastly that the role of the accounts officer as well as of the petitioner was similar to the extent, that both had recommended the purchase of Desert Cooler from a particular shop at a particular price but the accounts officer who was also proceeded with the departmental inquiry was awarded warning while the petitioner was removed from service.
(2.) The allegations against the petitioner, as set out in the charge sheet were that ten Desert Coolers were received in the Institute supplied by M/s Refrico, 118, Cantonment Road, Near Odeon Cinema, Lucknow, in gross violation of purchase procedure of the Institute, leave aside its nuances and niceties. The case for enquiry got rolling with the receipt of unsigned anonymous letter Upon the receipt of the said anonymous letter the petitioner was charged with tampering with the official records violating Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956; suppressed/concealed information relevant to arriving at a correct decision, thereby violating Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 ; violated the Purchase Procedure of Sanjai Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences in regard to the issue of purchase order not approved by the Competent Authority, thereby violating Rule 1 (a) of Chapter 5 of the above mentioned purchase procedure and purchase of coolers over Rs. 10,000/- without calling for tenders etc.
(3.) In para 25 of the writ petition it was averred by the petitioner that there was no evidence on record to prove that the Coolers which were purchased for the Institute were available in the market at lower price and as such the finding of the enquiry officer that the financial loss was caused to the Institute was absolutely incorrect. It is reiterated that the Coolers which were purchased at the rate of Rs. 3150/- per cooler are not available in the market at lower price. A perusal of the said report further reveals that enquiry officer had relied on the finding of the preliminary enquiry report. Petitioner was not given a copy of the preliminary report nor it was cited in the charge sheet and as such it could not be relied by the enquiry officer in support of the charges. This aspect of the matter that the petitioner was not given a copy of the preliminary report and the same could not be relied upon by the inquiry officer was not rebutted in the counter affidavit.;