Sabhajeet Yadav, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition challenging the order dated 2.4.1993 passed by District Judge, Mainpuri, contained in Annexure 13 of the writ petition, whereby he has been dismissed from service on the basis of a disciplinary enquiry held against him.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the Judgeship of District Mainpuri on 1.4.1982. His appointment was purely on temporary basis. In pursuance of his appointment he had joined his service on 5.4.1982. On 13.9.1982 one Sri Brahmanand lodged F.I.R. against petitioner under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC. at police station Ailau, District Mainpuri with the allegations that the petitioner enticed and kidnapped his sister Km. Mandodari Devi from his residence in the night of 12/13.9.1982. The then District Judge, Mainpuri issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his services be not terminated, which was served upon him on 24.9.1982, while he was in the police lock up. The then District Judge, Mainpuri after considering all the facts ceased his services with effect from 16.9.1982 vide order dated 30.9.1982. The petitioner made representation before this Court, which was treated as an appeal in administrative side. In the appeal this Court vide order dated 11.12.1991 held that the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India have not been followed and the then District Judge, Mainpuri was directed to frame chargesheet against the petitioner and thereafter hold an enquiry in the matter in accordance with law within three months. The order dated 11.12.1991 was not clear with regard to the reinstatement of petitioner, therefore, a reference was made by District Judge to this court whereupon the matter was clarified by this court vide order dated 20.5.1992 where by it was held that the petitioner would be deemed to have been reinstated in service and was to be relegated to his original position before passing of the order dated 30.9.1982. However it was left open to the District Judge to suspend the petitioner or not while serving the charge sheet upon him as directed by order dated 11.12.1991, in that event make the payment of the subsistence allowance as envisaged under F.R. 53 of U.P. Financial Hand Book. In respect of payment of salary during the period the petitioner was out of employment, the District Judge was directed to decide simultaneously along with decision in disciplinary inquiry according to F.R. 54 of U.P. Financial Hand Book Vol. 2 Part-2 to 4. The District Judge gave a charge sheet to the petitioner on 20.1.1992. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge sheet.
(3.) When the disciplinary inquiry was not completed within time allowed by this Court, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 27785 of 1992. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 12.8.1992 this Court has directed to conclude the disciplinary inquiry within one month if not concluded earlier but the said inquiry was not concluded as directed by this Court, then the petitioner was advised to file contempt petition before this Court. Thereupon this Court had issued notice to Sri M.P. Singh the then District Judge on 16.11.1992 (contained in Annexure-7 of the writ petition), which had annoyed the District Judge and on account of said animosity and biased opinion against the petitioner, he had framed fresh charge sheet against the petitioner by including old and stale charges on 11.6.1992 (as contained in Annexure-8 of the writ petition). The petitioner was also placed under suspension on 2.6.1992. The petitioner had filed objection against framing of fresh charge sheet and protested against the same. Instead of deciding the aforesaid objection of the petitioner, the inquiry officer went on holding the inquiry without giving any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. When the petitioner gave applications to cross-examine the witnesses, his applications were rejected. Thus a slip-shod ex-part inquiry was held against the petitioner and on 20.1.1993 a show cause notice was served upon him, along with which the finding of inquiry officer had also been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed two objections against the aforesaid show cause notice on 3.2.1993. In one objection he had levelled charges of bias against the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority/the then District Judge and in another objection he had assailed the findings of inquiry officer on various grounds mentioned in para 27 of the writ petition which were in brief that (i) No opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses which were produced against him before the inquiry officer; (ii) the petitioner was not supplied the documents which were used by the inquiry officer in his findings; (iii) the petitioner was not given opportunity to adduce his defence evidence and (iv) the findings of inquiry officer was also based upon old and stale charges which were deemed to have been waived and never directed to be included by this Court.;