- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of 'certiorari' quashing the order dated 3/4th October, 1996 dismissing the petitioner from service, order dated 9th January, 1996 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 28th September, 1998 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. Other consequential reliefs have also been sought. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are; petitioner had been working as Messenger in Food Corporation of India since 1971 and was posted at the relevant time under the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kanpur. A memo dated 27th June, 1985 was issued to the petitioner informing him that a disciplinary enquiry is proposed against him under Regulation 58 of U. P. Food Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). Along with the memo statement of articles of charges framed against the petitioner was sent as Annexure-I and statement of imputation, misconduct, misbehaviour in support of articles of charges was sent as Annexure-Il. Six charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet wrote a letter that charges are in English hence he be given a Hindi translation of the charge. The petitioner was informed to obtain Hindi translation from Assistant Manager. The petitioner after receiving the Hindi translation submitted his reply to the charge-sheet vide letter dated 23rd November, 1985 copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who fixed date for enquiry. Firstly 15th February, 1986 was fixed in the enquiry. The petitioner did not appear and raised objection to enquiry at Naini and asked to conduct enquiry at Chandari. Thereafter 25th February, 1986 was fixed on which date the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner sent an application dated 24th February, 1986 raising certain objections. A representation was filed by the petitioner dated 5th March, 1986 praying that place of enquiry be shifted other than Naini where the petitioner feels danger to his life. The District Manager advised the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry at Chandari or at District Office, Kanpur. The next date of enquiry was fixed as 19th May, 1986 at Kanpur on which date the petitioner stated that he has already informed the District Office, Kanpur that the enquiry be conducted by Senior Regional Manager Office, Lucknow only. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Again 23rd June, 1986 was fixed in the District Office, Kanpur intimating the petitioner that if he did not turn up on this date ex-parte hearing will be made as per provision made in Regulations. Again on 23rd June, 1986 the petitioner did not turn up. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and thereafter submitted enquiry report dated 31st July, 1986 holding all the charges proved except Charge No. 3. The District Manager, Kanpur to whom the enquiry report was sent wrote to the Senior Regional Manager that since the petitioner has made an attempt on the life of the District Manager, he may feel bias, hence the order be passed by the higher authority. The order dated 3rd/4th October, 1986 was passed by Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the order passed by Regional Manager dismissing the petitioner, the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before the Managing Director. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 562 of 1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17th May, 1995 directing the Managing Director to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter claimed to have filed a review petition before the Board of Directors. The petitioner again filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 21746 of 1998 challenging the decision of the appellate Court. This Court vide its order dated 10th July, 1998 directed the review petition to be disposed of within two months. The review petition was rejected by the order dated 28th September, 1998, communicated by Chairman, Food Corporation of India. This writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid three orders. Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, raised following submissions: (i) Charges against the petitioner were completely vague on which no disciplinary proceedings could have been started. (ii) Documents demanded by the petitioner in the enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner, hence the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice vitiating the dismissal order. (iii) In the disciplinary enquiry no witness was produced by the employers to prove the charges against the petitioner and without producing any witness to prove the charges, there was no evidence in the enquiry on which dismissal order could be passed. The documents relied by the department in the charge-sheet could also not have been relied since no one appeared in the enquiry to prove the documents. (iv) Petitioner's request for change of Enquiry Officer ought to have been accepted by the disciplinary authority. (v) No dates having been fixed in the enquiry, the enquiry has not been held and the punishment order is vitiated.
(3.) SRI Satya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were fully substantiated by the documents which were mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. It was not necessary for the department to lead oral evidence to prove the charges when the charges stood substantiated by the documents itself. He further contended that no examination of any witness was inconsequential since the documents, which were nothing but letters, complaints and memos written in the official course of business, were fully reliable. It was contended that petitioner was given full opportunity to inspect the documents but the petitioner deliberately avoided to appear in the enquiry. The counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various citations which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail.;