- (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Chandra on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has inter -alia challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.2015 passed by respondent no. 3 affirming the dismissal order dated 09.06.1992 and corrigendum dated 27.06.1992. Relief no. 2 in the writ petition is for calculation of payment of difference of amount of salary with all consequential benefits from 1992 upto 04.07.2014 and full payment from 24.07.2014 to date of superannuation of petitioner.
(3.) CONSIDERING the short issue involved, there being not much of a factual dispute and the fact that this is the 3rd round of litigation which commenced way back in the year 1992, we did not find it necessary to call for any counter affidavit, accordingly, we have heard the matter at the admission stage itself. The facts of the case are as under: On 17/31.05.1987 a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner containing six charges. The issuance of the charge -sheet ultimately culminated in the order of termination being passed against the petitioner on 09.06.1992. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by means of writ petition no. 3748 (S/B) of 1992. Subsequently, on 27.06.1992 a corrigendum to the order dated 09.06.1992 was issued. Both the orders were challenged before this Court by the petitioner by means of separate writ petitions being writ petition no. 3748 (S/B) of 1992 and 4800 (S/B) of 1992. On 29.06.1992 and 30.07.1992, stay / interim order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition, in pursuance to which the respondents, though they did not take the work from the petitioner, paid salary to him at the then admissible rate. This fact is not in dispute. However, the salary of the petitioner was neither revised nor any other service benefit including promotion etc. were given to the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petitions were allowed by this Court only on 24.07.2014. The relevant extract of the judgment of this Court is being quoted herein below: "We are unable to agree with this submission after having perused all the judgments inasmuch as the petitioner was facing inquiry in respect of several charges including financial irregularities. The graver charge relating to financial irregularity was not found to be proved. There was only charge no.1 that was held to have been proved relating to having not correctly verified the list of contractors that was prepared by one of the subordinate officials. The charge therefore which was found to be proved was only to the extent of negligence in verifying the list prepared by a subordinate official. Sri Krishna Chandra insists that this charge is also serious inasmuch as it has resulted in inviting a contractor for award of a contract who had not been earlier listed and was rather blacklisted. From the charge, we find that this issue as against the other charges was not grave enough and, therefore, the doctrine of proportionality comes to the aid of the petitioner for the purpose of awarding punishment in respect of such a charge. We, therefore, find that having not followed this procedure, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on the facts of the present case. The petitioner on being put to show cause could have raised submissions on the ground of proportionality. Consequently, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents does not in any way take away the right of the petitioner on the facts as indicated hereinabove to be put to show cause notice before awarding punishment. Consequently, we hold that this procedure having not been followed, the order of dismissal dated 9.6.1992 cannot be sustained. However, we uphold the proceedings of inquiry and we direct the respondents to put the petitioner to show cause and then after receiving his explanation proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.6.1992 is quashed subject to the aforesaid directions.";