V.M.Sahai, Sabhajeet Yadav - (1.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by same petitioner. First Writ Petition No. 19760 of 2000 was filed seeking for relief in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.4.2000, passed by respondent No. 1, i.e., Inspector General Registration, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, contained in Annexure-8 of the writ petition whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of (i) withholding the payment of salary for the period during the suspension, (ii) withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, (iii) awarding censure entry and withholding integrity for the year 1997-98 of the petitioner.
(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petitions rests on facts that while working on the post of Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 28.10.1999, the petitioner was placed under suspension. On the same day a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner containing as many as four charges against him. Vide aforesaid order dated 28.10.1999, Assistant Inspector General Registration, Mathura, was also appointed as Inquiry Officer and petitioner was directed to submit his reply of the charges within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet. A true copy of the charge-sheet dated 28.10.1999 is on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On receipt of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted his reply before the Inquiry Officer on 15.11.1999. Alongwith the aforesaid reply, the petitioner has filed as many as 18 documents, i.e., seven documents in support of reply of charge No. 1. three documents in support of reply to the charge No. 2, two documents in support of reply to the charge No. 3 and six documents in support of reply to the charge No. 4. A true copy of reply dated 15.11.1999 is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On receipt of the aforesaid reply, the Inquiry Officer has conducted disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and vide his report dated 24.12.1999, submitted to the respondent No. 1, the Inquiry Officer has held that the charge Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were not proved against the petitioner, whereas the charge No. 3 was partially proved against him. THE copy of the inquiry report supplied to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice dated 18.2.2000 is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 1/Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of Inquiry Officer contained in inquiry report and issued a show cause notice on 18.2.2000, indicating that the charge Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are proved against the petitioner, whereas charge No. 3 remained partially proved against him. It was also indicated in the show cause notice that any major penalty under Rule 3 of U. P. Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, can be awarded against the petitioner. A copy of show cause notice dated 18.2.2000 is on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that the copy of aforesaid show cause notice dated 18.2.2000, was received by the petitioner through District Registrar on 7.3.2000 and a copy of the aforesaid show cause notice was also served upon him through Assistant Inspector General Registration on 13.3.2000, accompanying with inquiry report dated 24.12.1999. On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his detailed reply through registered post on 24.3.2000, which was received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 28.3.2000 and has been recorded on 29.3.2000 in the receipt register at serial No. 2107. It is also stated that after submitting the reply through registered post on 24.3.2000 to the respondent No. 1 the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 1 at a relevant time was holding camp office at Lucknow and as such the petitioner has again submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice to the respondent No. 1 at his Lucknow Camp Office through speed post on 29.3.2000. A true copy of postal receipt issued by the post office concerned for the said registered letter which contains reply submitted by the petitioner at Lucknow Camp Office of respondent No. 1 is on record as Annexure-6 of the writ petition. The copy of reply is also on record as Annexure-7 of the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner did not receive any information whatsoever from the respondents asking him to appear either before respondent No. 1 or before respondent No. 2 and abruptly all of a sudden he has received the impugned order dated 11.4.2000, passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he has been punished simultaneously by aforesaid three penalties. Hence, this petition. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner in nut-shell has contended that the impugned order is vitiated under law on account of fact that while holding the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from three charges out of four charges levelled against him. whereas the third charge was found partially proved against him but while disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority did not give any cogent reason on the basis of materials inasmuch as the reply submitted by the petitioner against show-cause notice has not been considered at all. Elaborating his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copy of show-cause notice dated 18.2.2000 was admittedly received to the petitioner through District Registrar on 7.3.2000 and through Assistant Inspector General Registration on 13.3.2000, accompanying with inquiry report dated 24.12.1999 submitted by the Inquiry Officer asking the petitioner to submit his reply within fifteen days. On receipt of which the petitioner has submitted his reply through registered post on 24.3.2000 within eleven days from the date of receipt of notice, which was received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 28.3.2000 and was incorporated at serial No. 2107 of Dak Receipt Register dated 29.3.2000. Besides this, the petitioner has also sent a reply of aforesaid show cause notice through speed post on 29.3.2000 at Lucknow Camp Office of respondent No. 1. Thus, in any view of the matter the reply of show cause notice submitted by the petitioner has already been received in the office of respondent No. 1 and was available with him prior to the date of impugned order passed against him but while taking decision in the matter, the respondent No. 1 did not consider the aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner, thus committed gross illegality in coming to the conclusion arrived at by him while passing the impugned order against the petitioner. Such, action of respondent No. 1 is contrary to the provisions of Rules of Disciplinary Inquiry applicable to the petitioner and violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. Contrary to it, while justifying the impugned action/ impugned order on behalf of State-respondents one Sri Harpal Singh posted as Assistant I.G. Registration, Mathura, has filed a detail counter-affidavit in writ petition on behalf of State Government.
(3.) WE have heard Sri H. R. Mishra, advocate for the petitioner, and Wasim Alam, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-State authorities and also perused the records produced by the standing counsel. From bare reading of the counter-affidavit it indicates that general vague averments have been made to the effect that the Disciplinary Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by affording him adequate opportunity of hearing but there is no specific denial of the facts that the reply to the show cause notice dated 18.2.2000, submitted by the petitioner was received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 28.3.2000, within stipulated time and same was available to the respondent No. 1 prior to the impugned order dated 11.4.2000 was passed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner, which have been specifically asserted in Para 26 of the writ petition.;