- (1.) The State of U.P. has come forward to challenge the order dated 27.1.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") in Original Application No.258 of 2015, by means of which the Original Application filed by the opposite party no.1 has been allowed and the order dated 14.7.2015 passed by the State Government has been quashed.
(2.) The facts in short giving rise to the present dispute are that opposite party no.1, who belongs to the Indian Police Service of 1992 batch of U.P. Cadre, while posted as I.G. (Civil Defence) was served with the order dated 13.7.2015 placing him under suspension with immediate effect. Another order of the same date i.e. 13.7.2015 was issued by the State Government instituting departmental enquiry against opposite party no.1 under Rule 8 of the All India (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short "the 1969 Rules"). Opposite party no.1 was asked to give reply within fifteen days after receipt of the charge sheet to the D.G.P. Opposite party no.1 submitted his reply on 16.7.2015 denying the charges levelled against him. He also requested in a separate letter dated 20.7.2015 that he may be heard personally by Hon'ble the Chief Minister/ competent disciplinary authority as provided under Rule 8 (5) of the 1969 Rules. He was served with another order dated 14.7.2015 nominating Sri V.K. Gupta, Director General/ Chairman, U.P. Recruitment & Promotion Board Lucknow as Ex Presenting Officer under Rule 8 (2) and 8 (6) (c) of the 1969 Rules, which was received by him on 21.7.2015. The aforesaid order dated 14.7.2015 was put to challenge before the Tribunal, seeking quashing of the same on account of non-compliance of various provisions of Rule 8 of the 1969 Rules. Opposite party no.1 placed reliance upon Rules 8 (2), 8 (4), 8 (5), 8 (6) (a) (b) & (c). Opposite party no.1 placing reliance upon Rule 8 (5) of the 1969 Rules submitted his reply to the charge sheet within the time provided by the petitioners i.e. within a period of fifteen days. He also made a request to be heard by the Hon'ble Chief Minister in his capacity of disciplinary authority, but without either taking into cognizance of his statement or having given him an opportunity to be heard, the Enquiry Officer was appointed under Rule 8(2) & 8(6) of the 1969 Rules on the very next day of the charges being drawn up against him. The Enquiry Officer was required to be appointed under Rule 8(6)(a) of the 1969 Rules, which categorically states that Enquiry Officer is to be appointed after considering the written statement of defence of the charged officer. Rule 8(2) of the 1969 Rules is only an enabling provision, but the actual sequence of action is governed by Rule 8(6)(a) of the 1969 Rules. Such action shows that the petitioners were biased against him and a free and fair disciplinary proceedings as laid down under various provisions of Rule 8 were not followed. Opposite party no.1 also made a request that he may be allowed to meet the Hon'ble Chief Minister in his capacity as disciplinary authority as contemplated under Rule 8(2)(b) of the 1969 Rules, which provides that the disciplinary authority is an authority competent under these Rules to impose on a Member of All India Service any of the penalties specified under Rule 6 of the 1969 Rules, which enumerates various minor and major penalties.
(3.) Counter affidavit was filed to which rejoinder affidavit had been filed by opposite party no.1 and after considering arguments of the parties, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim petition and quashed the order dated 14.7.2015 and the matter was remanded back to the petitioners to institute the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of submission of reply dated 15.7.2015 read with representation dated 20.7.2015 and proceed as per Rule 8(2) read with Rule 8(6) of the 1969 Rules. Hence this writ petition.;