N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 1.5.2002 and 25.1.2002 contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to perform his duties and to pay regular salary along with arrears to the petitioner.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was posted as Warehouse Superintendent at the Unnao Warehouse of the Corporation. He was dismissed by order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure-2) in a disciplinary proceeding. He preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Annexure-1. There were four charges against the petitioner. The first charge levelled against the petitioner was that from the reliable source it was learnt that the petitioner on 27.2.1998 managed to take out 150 bags of wheat illegally in planned manner without recording and making any entry in the relevant registers except recording entry in the Gate Pass Register. Later on the said relevant pages of the Gate Pass Register were torn out. The second charge levelled against the petitioner is that he did not discharge his duties and responsibilities in capacity as center Incharge and petitioner was careless in not verifying the entries in the relevant registers. The third charge levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he held his subordinate and sided their acts and omissions as provided protection illegally as consequence of which indiscipline amongst the subordinate staff was encouraged. Charge No. four against the petitioner was to the effect that the petitioner did not certify the various registers managed at the warehouse and did not record certificate as to how many pages register contains and the registers were not numbered as a consequence of which full advantage was taken for taking out 150 bags of wheat in unauthorised manner. Firstly, the impugned dismissal order has been challenged on various grounds, firstly, that the charges are vague and of general in nature ; and secondly, the petitioner demanded the copies of the relevant document from the Enquiry Officer but the Enquiry Officer without application of mind and without deciding the relevancy of the document demanded by the petitioner refused the request of the petitioner. Thirdly, after submission of the reply by the petitioner on 23/24.8.1998. denying all the charges, the Enquiry Officer without holding any enquiry submitted report on 16.6.1999 in utter violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer did not fix and inform the petitioner any time and place of enquiry. Fourthly, the Enquiry Officer did not record any oral evidence to prove all the documents relied on in support of the charges or to prove the charges. Fifthly, the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the officer concerned and the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved by the Enquiry Officer. Sixthly, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to lead any evidence in his defence. Seventhly, it is alleged that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.1.2002 without considering the reply to show cause notice and the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on 1.5.2002 in an arbitrary and illegal manner without adverting to the true facts of the case and the grounds of appeal. Eighthly, the punishment is disproportionate and excessive. The opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 have filed the counter-affidavit. It has been contended by the opposite parties that all the documents and papers in support of the charges were given to the petitioner. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted the reply to the charge-sheet and it shows that a proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to plead his defence. It is alleged that the petitioner was posted as Warehouse Superintendent at the Unnao Warehouse of the Corporation. It is also alleged that the petitioner managed to take out 150 bags of Wheat illegally on 27.2.1998 and this entry was only made in Gate Pass Register and further no entry was made in other relevant records. The said relevant pages of the Gate Pass Register were also torn out with the intention to destroy the evidence. After completing the disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the punishment order has been passed and the appeal has been dismissed by the competent authority in accordance with the Staff Regulations. It is also alleged that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to Public Service Tribunal. It is alleged that on 9.5.1999, the petitioner himself had written to the Enquiry Officer that he does not want to cross-examine any of the witness and he does not require any necessity to adduce the evidence. The letter-dated 9.5.1999 is Annexure-CA2.
(3.) THE rules of the disciplinary proceedings are given in U. P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations. Regulation 16 (1) (g) provides the punishment of dismissal as one of penalties. Regulation 16 (3) provides that no punishment of dismissal shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him any opportunity for tendering explanation in writing and cross-examining the witnesses and also without producing any evidence in defence. So far as the first contention is concerned about vagueness of the charges, it is alleged that the charges are of general nature and no specific charge was levelled against the petitioner and the result of it was that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding of the charges being proved on the conjecture and surmises. I have seen the charges as contained in Annexure-4. After seeing the charge-sheet. I am of the view that it cannot be said that the charges are vague or general in nature. I have also seen the reply submitted by the petitioner, which goes to show that the petitioner has come to know about the charges levelled against him. Therefore, this contention that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground of vagueness of the charges is rejected.;