- (1.) HEARD Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.10.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad as contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has been dismissed from service by this order. He has challenged the impugned order on the ground that no time, date and place was fixed for the inquiry. Charges have not been proved? conclusively with the help of any witness. He was not given a chance of making oral submissions after the charge-sheet was replied in writing. It is also interesting to note that the charge-sheet was issued on 24.8.1992. Chargesheet was served on the petitioner on 20.10.1992. When no reply was given ex-parte inquiry report was submitted on 26.12.1992. In this report the inquiry officer found all the charges proved. The Parganadhikari once again gave a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.12.1992. It was served on the petitioner on 3rd January, 1993. The petitioner did not reply to this also.
(2.) THE parganadhikari issued a notice on 12.1.1993 once again and when the petitioner did not even reply to this within time finally on 21.1.1993 the dismissal order against the petitioner was passed. The petitioner represented to the District Magistrate against this order. It was rejected on 12.5.1999 against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, which has also been rejected. It is this rejection which is being challenged by the petitioner. The inquiry report has been annexed as annexure No.2 to this petition.? Seven charges were levelled against the petitioner by a charge sheet issued? on 28.4.1992 which has been annexed by learned Standing counsel as annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. All the charges are relating to dereliction of duty, not handing over of charge and not completing the work in time. Mercifully, there is no charge of misappropriation of money or illegal transfer of any? property which is normally done by a revenue officer.
(3.) IN the present case, petitioner submitted his reply which has been annexed as annexure No.3 to the writ petition. In this reply the petitioner has denied all the charges, explained the circumstances and has also alleged that 'Bhoolekh Adhikari' was against him for certain reasons. Most of the charges have been proved on the basis of documents. Strangely enough not a single witness has been examined by the inquiry officer. No time, date or place was fixed for the inquiry. Hence, it can not be said that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with established norms as well as declared judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Petitioner has relied upon a number of cases including the case of Abdul Salam Vs. State of U.P. and others, Speical Appeal No.191 of 2007,? reported in 2011 (29) LCD 832. In this case, the Division Bench has laid down a detailed procedure for conducting inquiry on the basis of number of judgments which have been given in paragraph 13 of the said judgment. Finally, the Hon'ble Court has come to the conclusion that time, date and place should be fixed for conducting an inquiry. The same is necessary because without knowledge of time, date and place where the inquiry is to be conducted the delinquent employee is not in a position to cross examine the witnesses or to deny or doubt the existence of any document which is in the possession of the inquiry officer. Principles of natural justice requires that opportunity of hearing is a must. This opportunity of hearing in the matter of departmental inquiry has been held to mean written as well as oral opportunity. In the present case, the version of 'Bhoolekh Adhikari' has been relied upon for awarding the punishment but the 'Bhoolekh Adhikari' has not been produced as a departmental witness. Since he was not produced as a departmental witness the petitioner did not have? any chance to cross-examine. Similarly, the charge has been levelled that T.R.S. Table was not completed by him and the agricultural produce of each person of the village was not entered into this chart. In this regard also, there is a report? of 'Bhoolekh Adhikari' against whom, the petitioner has alleged malafides. It was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to have produced 'Bhoolekh Adhikari' to prove charge number 6 also. It is established beyond doubt that no time, date or place was fixed.;