K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, U.P. dated 1-2-1971, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order of the State Government dated 11-5-1972 dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Noter and Drafter in the Government Press, at Allahabad. Certain charges were framed against him for misconduct and negligence in the performance of his duties as a result of which the Government was put to financial loss. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges. The Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, Government Press, appointed Bhola Dutt Lohani, Personal Officer of the Government Press as enquiry Officer and the petitioner was asked to appear before the said Enquiry officer, but the petitioner did not appear, instead he asserted that whatever he had to say had already been stated by him in his explanation. In the circumstances the enquiry was held in the petitioner's absence. The enquiry officer, however, examined one Joyal Singh and recorded his statement in the petitioners absence and thereafter he submitted his report to the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery that out of five charge, charge Nos. 4 and 5 were proved whereas the first three charges were not established. The Superintendent who was the punishing authority accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply and in that reply he raised various submissions including that the charges had not been proved and further that since he had been exonerated on charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3, he could not be found guilty of charge Nos. 4 and 5 which were consequently to charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3. He further raised a grievance that the statement of Mr. Joyal Singh was recorded behind his back and he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. The Superintendent did not find the petitioner's explanation satisfactory, he held that the petitioner was negligent in his duties and on that finding he passed the order dated 1-2-1971 dismissing the petitioner from service and directed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,895.98 from the petitioner as in his opinion the Government had been put to financial loss due to the petitioner's negligence. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. The State Government by its order dated 11-5-1972 dismissed the appeal but made a minor alteration in the punishment. It directed that the punishment of dismissal should be converted into removal. A copy of the order of the State Government could be served on the petitioner only on 9-2-1973. The petitioner thereupon made several applications to the State Government for giving a copy of the reasoned order dismissing his appeal, but he failed to obtain the same. Ultimately the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid order of the Superintendent and the State Government.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that it was none of the duty of the petitioner to check the challan or recoupment orders and therefore he had wrongly been held guilty of those charges. He has further urged that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of defence as the statement of Joyal Singh was recorded behind his back and he had been afforded no opportunity of cross-examination, and further the department had never informed the petitioner that Joyal Singh's statement would be recorded in support of the charges nor his name was mentioned as a witness for the department in the charge-sheet. If the petitioner had been given information about the recording of the statement of Joyal Singh, he would have appeared and cross-examined him. The order of dismissal which is founded on the testimony of Joyal Singh is thus vitiated. I am not expressing my opinion on these questions as in my opinion the writ petition can be disposed of on another ground.;