Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.G. Padia, senior counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Padia for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Both the parties have agreed that the writ petition itself be finally decided.
(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 23.4.1999 Annexure-14 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are : Petitioner was appointed as Labour Investigator vide order dated 26.7.1979 under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. Petitioner was promoted as Welfare Superintendent and was working as Housing Inspector in the year 1996. On 27.7.1996, the petitioner was transferred as Housing Inspector from Shastri Nagar to Zajmau, Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner did not hand over charge of Shastri Nagar and was issued several letters for handing over charge. A letter dated 3.10.1996 was issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner that he has not complied the order of the departmental authorities which shows indiscipline in discharge of duties. On 15th October, 1996, the lock of the almirah of Shastri Nagar was broken open but neither any cash nor relevant receipts were found. Petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 2.12.1996 and disciplinary proceedings started. A charge-sheet dated 30.5.1997 was given to the petitioner of which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 27.6.1997. An additional charge-sheet containing three more charges was issued to the petitioner on 10.2.1999 which was also replied by the petitioner. In this writ petition, this Court vide its order dated 16.7.2001 passed an order directing the respondents to produce the entire record of the disciplinary enquiry. Learned standing counsel has produced the record of the disciplinary proceedings which was perused by the Court on 20.5.2002 and 22,5.2002. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 30.1.1999, 10.2.1999, 19.2.1999 and 25.2.1999. On 30.1.1999, petitioner was given copies of various documents running from 1 to 58 pages. In the enquiry proceedings, neither employer nor the petitioner produced any oral evidence. No witnesses were examined by either of the parties. The Enquiry Officer gave personal hearing to the petitioner on different dates and ultimately submitted detailed enquiry report dated 12.3.1999. In the enquiry report, out of ten charges, seven charges were found fully proved. A show cause notice dated 20.3.1999, was issued to the petitioner informing him that the Enquiry Officer has found seven charges proved out of ten charges. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he be not removed from the service. A copy of the enquiry report was also annexed along with the show cause notice. The petitioner also replied to show cause notice. The Labour Commissioner, U. P., after considering the reply to show cause notice of the petitioner and other material on record has passed the removal order dated 23.4.1999. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order dated 23.4.1999.
(3.) Dr. R.G. Padia, counsel for the petitioner challenging the removal order has raised following submissions in support of the writ petition : (1) That the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner has been conducted in violation of statutory rules, namely Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, since the employers did not prove the charges by any evidence and no enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer as contemplated under the Rules. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on various authorities of this Court and the Apex Court in support of the above submission. (2) The petitioner was not paid suspension allowance during the suspension period which has vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings. Several decisions have also been cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission. Learned standing counsel Sri Ajay Bhanot refuting the submission of the counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was given copies of documents relied in the charge-sheet and the petitioner was also given oral hearing in the disciplinary enquiry. Learned standing counsel submitted that the charges against the petitioner were established from the documents on record and it was not obligatory for the Department to bring oral evidence on record in support of the charges. Learned standing counsel produced original record of the disciplinary proceedings and has pointed out that the petitioner has appeared before the Enquiry Officer on several dates and had signed the enquiry proceedings. Learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner did not ask for producing any witness or to cross-examine any witness. Learned standing counsel placed reliance on several decisions in support of his submission. Replying the second submission of the counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel contended that since the petitioner participated in the disciplinary enquiry, non-receiving of suspension allowance was no Impediment in participating in the enquiry, the proceedings are not vitiated on that account.;