- (1.) The appellant is an aided educational institution governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Providhik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1962. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order of the learned Single Judge dated 9 December 2015 in a writ petition instituted by the first respondent challenging an order of 27 December 1993 dismissing him from service. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by non compliance with the principles of natural justice. The charges against the respondent involve serious allegations of misdemeanor relating to the embezzlement of the funds of the institution and obtaining appointment on the basis of fabricated documents. Finding that there was no inquiry in the eyes of law after the denial of charges by the respondent, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment but left it open to the Management to conclude the inquiry proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Liberty has been granted to the Management to place the respondent under suspension and the issue of back wages has been directed to abide by the result of the disciplinary inquiry and the decision which may be taken by the disciplinary authority. The authorized controller of the institution has filed the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(2.) The respondent was appointed in 1987 as a junior clerk in the institution. A charge sheet was issued to him on 26 April 1993 containing eight charges. Basically, the charges related to (i) alleged acts of embezzlement; and (ii) obtaining appointment on the basis of fabricated documents. In response to the charge sheet, the respondent filed a reply denying the allegations of misconduct. What transpired during the course of the inquiry and the consequence thereof, has been summarized in the observations of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 11 of the judgment. For the purposes of present special appeal, it would be necessary to extract therefrom since the learned Single Judge noted that parties are not at issue on the facts relating to the nature of the inquiry that was conducted. This statement of fact is not disputed in the course of hearing of the Special Appeal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in that regard observes as follows: "...Parties are not at issue on the factual proposition that no date or time was fixed in the enquiry, and none of the witnesses were examined. The enquiry officer has proceeded to return his findings merely on the strength of the chargesheet, reply submitted by the petitioner, and the materials available on record. In the opinion of the Court, this enquiry is no enquiry in the eyes of law, inasmuch as once petitioner has denied the charges levelled against him, the enquiry officer was required to proceed further in the matter, and conduct an enquiry in order to ascertain facts, so as to determine the guilt of the petitioner. This could have been done by the enquiry officer only by holding an enquiry, for which a date was required to be fixed. The enquiry officer was required to associate petitioner in such enquiry, and record all evidence etc. in the presence of petitioner, and accord an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner in respect of the materials relied upon against him. In fact, in the present case, no such procedure has been followed, and without holding any enquiry whatsoever, the enquiry officer has proceeded to submit his reply. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that in fact no valid enquiry has been conducted in the matter, and the enquiry report could not have been relied upon for returning a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The order of punishment under challenge, based upon such report of the enquiry officer is not liable to be sustained. In view of the finding returned on this question, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the question relating to service of the enquiry report upon the petitioner or the question as to whether the order has been passed by a competent authority."
(3.) On this foundation, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal dated 27 December 1993 that was passed against the respondent. However, liberty was granted to the Management to place the respondent under suspension and the back wages were directed to abide by the decision of the disciplinary authority after the disciplinary proceedings are concluded in accordance with the principles of natural justice.;