- (1.) Dr. Chhotey Lal has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 30.5.2014 (Annexure-1) passed by the State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Anubhag-6, Government of U.P. At Lucknow according punishment to the petitioner of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect alongwith censor. Brief background of the case is that on 13.2.1985 petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer in Uttar Pradesh Provincial Medical and Health Services, on the recommendation of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on temporary/stopgap arrangement. In pursuance of the appointment order dated 13.2.1985 petitioner submitted his joining on the post of Medical Officer to the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 13.3.1985, and thereafter vide order dated 19.3.1985 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, the petitioner was posted at Employees State Insurance Dispensary, Bhadohi, Varanasi, where petitioner had submitted his joining on 19.3.19085 to the In-charge Medical Officer. Petitioner submits that in the year 1985 options were invited by the Government from the Medical Officers who wanted to be absorbed in the Employees State Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ' ESIS' in short) Labour Medical Services, U.P. And in pursuance of that, the petitioner submitted his option for absorption in the Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour Medical Services, and accordingly he was absorbed in the Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour Medical Services, U.P. In the year 1985. Petitioner further submits that in the year 2003, the petitioner was transferred from Varanasi to the ESI Dispensary, Gorakhpur on the post of Medical Officer and vide order dated 18.2.2003 the petitioner was promoted from the post of Medical Officer to the post of Medical Superintendent and posted as Medical Superintendent at ESI Hospital, Aligarh. It has been submitted that in pursuance of promotion order dated 18.2.2003 the petitioner submitted his joining on the post of Medical Superintendent at ESI Hospital, Aligarh and remained posted there upto 26.7.2007 and vide office memorandum dated 26.7.2007 he was promoted on the post of Joint Director/Chief Medical Officer, after regular selection and posted as Chief Medical Officer, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour Medical Services, Agra Region, Agra. Petitioner submits that in pursuance of promotion order dated 26.7.2007 the petitioner submitted his joining on the post of Chief Medical Officer, Employees, State Insurance Scheme, Labour Medical Services, Agra Region, Agra on 1.8.2007. vide order dated 13.1.2009 issued by the Directorate of Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour Medical Services, U.P., Kanpur, additional charge of the post of Medical Superintendent E.S.I. Hospital;, Agra was also given to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.1.2009 due to superannuation of Medical Officer namely Dr. Dinesh Singh, who was also holding the charge of Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Agra. Petitioner submits that on 26.11.2012 an office order was issued by the State Government by means of which Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Medical Officer, ESI Hospital Agra was authorized to hold the charge of Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Agra and the petitioner was directed to handover the charge of Medical Superintendent ESI Hospital, Agra to Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, immediately and in compliance of the office order dated 26.11.2012 the petitioner handed over the charge of Medical Superintendent ESI Hospital, Agra to Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta on 1.12.2012. Petitioner submits that on 18.12.2012 Medical Superintendent ESI Hospital, Agra wrote a letter to the Director, ESIS Labour Medical Services U.P. Kanpur about payment of Rs. 8,61,502.74/- in the financial year 2012-13 without taking supply of medicines and requested therein for providing the guidance. On 20.12.2012 Medical Superintendent ESI Hospital, Agra wrote a letter to the Station House Officer Hari Parvat Agra, on the basis of instructions given by the Director ESIS to lodged first information report against the petitioner and Sri R.P. Sharma (Pharmacist), Smt. Ruchi Katiyar (Pharmacist) and Sri Anil Sharma (Senior Clerk/Store Keeper). Petitioner further submits that on the basis of letter dated 20.12.2012 written by Medical Superintendent ESI Hospital, Agra to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hari Parvat Agra an FIR was registered against the petitioner and Sri R.P. Sharma (Pharmacist), Smt. Ruchi Katiyar (Pharmacist), Sri Anil Sharma (Senior Clerk/Store keeper) vide case crime No. 1044 of 2012 at police station Hariparvat, Agra for offence under Section 409 I.P.C. On 21.12.2012. On 11.1.2013 the petitioner was served upon an office memorandum dated 7.1.2013 by means of which the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and Sri Usha Raman Tripathi, Director, ESIS Kanpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer, and as a consequence of the petitioner being placed under suspension, the petitioner has been attached with the Employees State Insurance Directorate (Head-quarter) Kanpur. On 11.1.2013 itself, a charge-sheet dated 7.1.2013 was served upon the petitioner to which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 17.1.2013. Petitioner submitted the reply to the charge-sheet on 17.1.2013 but the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 18.7.2013. Petitioner submits that by means of letter dated 19.8.2013 issued under the signature of under Secretary, enquiry report was sup-plied to the petitioner to submit his reply. Since the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 3.9.2013, within 15 days of the supply of the enquiry report; the petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry report i.e. on 7.9.2013. Thereafter, final decision was taken and disciplinary proceedings were concluded and communicated to the petitioner by serving an office order dated 30.5.2014 directly, as such present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Sri. Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of the action on the premises that entire action so initiated is per-se bad, and further inquiry being vitiated on account of non compliance of principle of natural justice and accordingly order impugned be quashed and requisite relief be accorded.
(3.) Countering the said submission learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that full opportunity has been provided to petitioner and rightful action has been taken in the matter once no witness was proposed in the charge-sheet, as such no interference should be made with the order impugned.;