- (1.) Heard Sri S.C.Srivastava assisted by Sri Mehboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
(2.) On 10.3.2015, this Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and passed the following orders : "Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award dated 20.8.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in Adjudication Case No.26 of 1999, whereby, the order of termination has been set aside and the services of respondent no.1 has been reinstated along with payment of full salary for the period 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998 and 10% of back wages for the period from 29.8.1998 till he attained the age of superannuation in July 2007. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that according to the respondent no.1, he was appointed as mate by the petitioners on 1.1.1970 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sub Station Operator on 1.2.1974. By the order of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar, dated 19.10.1996, the respondent no.1 was doing the work of taking meter reading of consumers of Kandhla area, since November 1996 and used five reading books, which were deposited by him in the department of the petitioner. He was again directed to work vide order dated 5.11.1997. Thereafter, he was directed by the authorities to continue to work at Sub Station "Bhoora" on the post of Sub Station Operator as no other employee was posted. He was not relieved from Sub Station Bhoora. However, his salary was not paid w.e.f. 1.8.1996 and as such he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26884 of 1997, which was finally disposed of by an order dated 4.9.1997 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by the respondent no.1 along with a copy of the said order of this Court on 9.9.1997. However, the respondent no.2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 again filed a writ petition No.393 of 1998, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.01.1998. By the said order this Court again directed the petitioners to decide the representation of respondent no.1, but the authority concerned again did not decide the representation of the respondent no.1 and instead, without making any inquiry; terminated the services of respondent no.1 vide order dated 29.8.1998 on the ground that the respondent no.1 has not deliberately joined the service despite notices issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the respondent no.2, which was registered as Adjudication Case No.26 of 1999 and has been decided by the impugned order dated 20.8.2014. In the impugned order, the respondent no.2 has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent no.1 was working during the period from 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998. The order dated 28.8.1998 passed by respondent no.2 terminating the services of the respondent no.1 was wholly arbitrary and illegal. A finding has also been recorded that neither any proceeding was initiated nor any inquiry has been conducted under Rule 3 (1) of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants ) (Condition of Service ) Regulation 1975. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no.1. Two applications were moved by respondent no.1 for summoning the official records of the petitioners for the relevant period containing description of work done by respondent no.1 as well as the orders of his posting etc., but the petitioners despite number of opportunities being afforded, the respondent no.1 did not produce those documents. As a secondary evidence, the respondent no.1 produced photostat copies of several documents which have not been disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not even disputed in their written statement and the fact that the respondent no.1 had worked from 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998. After detail discussions on the conduct of the petitioners as well as the evidences on record, the respondent no.2 recorded findings of fact that the termination of services of respondent no.1 by the petitioners was wholly arbitrary, improper and illegal. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order/award dated 10.8.2014, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned award has been passed without noticing Clause (e) of the second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the aforesaid Regulation of 1975, which provides that where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. Relying upon this rule, he submits that since, the petitioners are satisfied that the respondent no.1 was absent from duty w.e.f. 1.8.1996, and therefore, his termination from service is wholly justified. Prima-facie, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly misconceived. Perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioners were directed to produce number of evidences in the form of official records, but they deliberately did not produce before the respondent no.1. They have also not passed any order on the representation of the respondent no.1, despite the orders of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.393 of 1998 and Writ Petition No.27884 of 1997. It has not been disputed that the respondent no.1 was working at sub station Bhoora. The respondent no.2 passed the impugned award directing the petitioners to pay salary to respondent no.1 for the period 1.8.1996 to 28.8.1998 during which he actually worked. For the remaining period till the date of attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent no.2 directed the petitioners to pay 10% of the wages to the respondent no.1. Prima-facie, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned award. On the other hand, the action of the petitioners authorities, prima-facie, appears to be highly arbitrary and illegal. They did not comply with the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions and the orders passed by respondent no.2 directing them to produce in evidence certain official records. Under the circumstances, prima-facie, I find that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost to be recovered from personal salary/assets of the erring officers, who have acted in a grossly arbitrary and illegal manner and deliberately did not produce documents before the respondent no.2. Before any such order may be passed it appears necessary to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to file a personal affidavit of petitioner no.1 explaining their conduct. The said affidavit shall be filed by the petitioner No.1 within a week from today after thorough scrutiny in the matter. As prayed, put up on 18.3.2015. "
(3.) An affidavit of Sri Subhash, Executive Engineer, electricity Distribution Division-II, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar dated 25.3.2015 on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 26.3.2015.;