- (1.) HEARD Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.K. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the enquiry report dated 11.12.2009 submitted by the Enquiry Officer, namely, Sri Ramesh Chandra Dhildiyal, Joint Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow (respondent No. 2), contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition.
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as District Basic Education Officer at Bahraich, was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 24.7.2003 inter alia on the grounds that he offered appointment to the B.Ed. Degree holders as Assistant Teacher in the department of Basic Education. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.8.2003. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 19.6.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 1299 of 2006, challenging his suspension order dated 24.7.2003. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed to conclude the enquiry within two months, otherwise suspension order will be revoked. According to the petitioner, neither the enquiry was concluded within the period prescribed by this Court nor the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance. However, vide order dated 16.1.2008, services of the petitioner were dismissed by the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 23432 of 2008, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy with a direction to the State Public Services Tribunal to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of six months vide order dated 7.5.2008. Pursuant to the order dated 7.5.2008, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service dated 16.1.2008 before the State Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 998 of 2008. The Tribunal, vide order dated 24.11.2008, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, allowed the claim petition with a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the State Government to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with Rules and observing the principles of natural justice.
(3.) NOT being satisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.11.2008 of the Tribunal, the State Government assailed the judgment and order dated 24.11.2008 by filing writ petition No. 434 (S/B) of 2009. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.3.2009, disposed of the writ petition by modifying the judgment and order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the consequential benefits awarded by the Tribunal shall depend upon the outcome of the fresh inquiry, if any. Further it was provided that if any enquiry is initiated against the petitioner, it shall be concluded by the State within three months from the date of the order. Against the order dated 18.3.2009 of the High Court, the State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 25485 of 2009. The Apex Court, vide judgment and order dated 1.10.2009, dismissed the special leave petition with the following directions : " We see no reason to interfere in this S.L.P. particularly when the High Court has remitted the matter for de novo enquiry. However, since the period of three months for conducting de novo enquiry has since elapsed, we extend the time to complete the said enquiry within three months from today. In the circumstances, the contempt proceedings instituted by the delinquent shall remain suspended for three months." ;