Jagdish Bhalla, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of reversion- dated 20.11.1985 passed by the Housing Commissioner and consequential order dated 24.01.2004, contained in annexure no.29 to the writ petition.
(2.) Petitioner is said to be a product of I.I.T. Kanpur 1963 batch and was appointed as Assistant Engineer by an order dated 08.07.1970 in U.P. Housing Development Board. Thereafter in 1982 he was confirmed.. On 30.11.1978 petitioner was promoted on adhoc basis on the post of Executive Engineer for a period of six months. According to petitioner his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer was regularized.
(3.) On 29.11.1983, the Superintending Engineer, Meerut submitted a report to the Housing Commissioner indicating therein the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer also recommended the suspension of the petitioner but the same was not accepted. However, a departmental inquiry was ordered by an order dated 19.12.1983 with respect to the various charges against the petitioner and one Sri V.S.Vasudevan, Superintending Engineer Ist Circle was appointed as Enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges levelled against him and requested for personal hearing. According to petitioner the impugned order is illegal, unjustified and unwarranted as by this punishment order dated 20.11.1985 the petitioner was inflicted with major and minor punishment both by the Housing Commissioner, which is not permissible under law. The petitioner was not only reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Engineer but his two increments were permanently withheld and an adverse entry was also made in his character roll. According to petitioner's Counsel, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 19.12.1984 denying the charges levelled against him with specific request that he be heard in person. It has been submitted that the Inquiry Officer who had framed as many as 13 charges against the petitioner failed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner during inquiry. Neither any date was fixed by the Inquiry Officer nor the petitioner's specific request for being given oral hearing as laid down in Regulation 27(2) of the Regulations was afforded. The decision of disciplinary authority against the petitioner was in gross violation of the provisions of Regulation and the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were void ab-initio.;