Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22nd January, 1997 by which the petitioner, who had been working as a Chawkidar in the office of the Regional Food Controller, was dismissed from service.
(2.) A charge-sheet dated 9th January, 1997 was issued to the petitioner containing two charges in respect of the irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was posted as the Barrier Chawkidar at Tadiya Godown, Lalitpur. The first charge was that the petitioner along with Sri Malkhan Chawkidar went to the godown after taking the keys from Sri M.U. Ansari, Assistant Regional Food Controller, Lalitpur and after opening the godown took out two bags of imported sugar which were subsequently loaded in a tempo for being taking to the residence of Sri M.U. Ansari. This was objected to by Sri Munni Lal godown Chawkidar and the matter was also reported to the police authorities who took the imported bags of sugar into custody and initiated criminal proceedings. In this manner the petitioner made an attempt to commit theft of the embezzled government property. The second charge was also in connection with the aforesaid incident and was that on 29th October, 1994 the petitioner made attempts to deliver the two bags of imported sugar at the residence of Sri M.U. Ansari, Assistant Regional Food Controller, Lalitpur after taking them out from the godown knowing fully well that the said bags of sugar were meant for distribution to the public. Thus in collusion with the said Sri Ansari, the petitioner made attempts to misappropriate the sugar and cause loss of government property. It may be pointed out that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner had been suspended by the order dated 13th February, 1995 and Sri Atar Singh had been appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 27th January, 1996 to the aforesaid charge-sheet and thereafter Sri Atar Singh submitted an enquiry report but it was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and by the order dated 26th September, 1996 another Enquiry Officer Sri B.B. Lal Srivastava was appointed. Opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer for personal hearing/cross-examination on 3rd April, 1996 and 11th April, 1996 and thereafter the enquiry report dated 19th November, 1996 was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, The Enquiry Officer in his detailed report considered the evidence available on record and both the charges were found to be proved.
(3.) A communication dated 11th December, 1996 was thereafter sent to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner was asked to show-cause why a major penalty should not be imposed upon him. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16th December, 1 996 and made a request for supply of the earlier enquiry report submitted by Sri Atar Singh and also demanded copies of the statement of the witnesses recorded during the enquiry. A communication dated 31st December, 1996 was then sent to the petitioner enclosing certified copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner but instead of submitting a reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner again sent a communication dated 1st January, 1997 and made a request for certain other documents and also typed copies of the documents supplied to the petitioner. A reply dated 7th January, 1997 was sent to the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid communication mentioning that the petitioner can peruse the original documents in the office by 9th January, 1997. However, inspite of the aforesaid opportunity having been granted, the petitioner did not think it proper to peruse the original documents and nor did he submit any reply. This compelled the Disciplinary Authority to send the communication dated 13th January, 1997 to the petitioner by which another opportunity was granted to the petitioner to inspect the original documents in the office by 13th January, 1997 and submit his reply by 20th January, 1997. The said letter was received by the petitioner on 16th January, 1997. The petitioner submitted a reply, which was received in the office on 17th January, 1997. The Disciplinary Authority considered the evidence on record including the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter passed the detailed order dated 22nd January, 1997 running into 11 typed pages by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.;