- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-1-1997 passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 15-11-1997 passed by respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23-9-1998 issued by Secretary/general Manager Etawah Unit contained in Annexure-9 and 15 respectively to writ petition. Vide order dated 4-1-1997 while working on the post of store incharge in U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Etawah the petitioner has been dismissed from service and vide order dated 15-11-1997 the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal has been dismissed by respondent No. 2 and vide communication letter dated 23-9-1998 the aforesaid order passed in appeal of the petitioner has been communicated to him.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was appointed as store incharge in U. P. Co- operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. , Etawah in pursuance of appointment letter dated 25-8-1982. It is stated that 11 Co-operative Spinning Mills including the Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. , Etawah is affiliated with U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited, Kanpur which is an Apex Society and its area of operation is extended to whole Uttar Pradesh. It is also stated that the work and conduct of the petitioner was quite satisfactory, therefore, he was confirmed on the post of Store Incharge vide a letter dated 26-11-1983. In para 8 of the writ petition it is stated that when the present Managing Director Sri Vijai Shanker Pandey, an I. A. S. Officer took over the charge of the Federation from very inception he started harassing in order to mount pressure to get illegal benefit from the Mills and officers/employees who does not succumb to his illegal desire were subjected to torture and humiliation on the basis of concocted and fabricated vague charges and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was served an order dated 9-11-1996 issued by Managing Director of Federation and Chairman of the Mills namely Sri Vijai Shanker Pandey himself appointing inquiry officer and disclosing therein that a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner. A Copy of which is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. THE aforesaid order was followed by a charge-sheet dated 15-11-1996 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby three charges were levelled against the petitioner that (1) the petitioner did not supply demanded experience certificate produced at the time of his appointment (2) the petitioner went on leave and started submitting medical certificate to the authority concerned and (3) the petitioner did not turned up for medical check up on 29th July, 1996 in spite of information sent by telegraph. A copy of charge-sheet is on record as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. In response to the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply before the authority concerned on 2-12-1996 refuting the charges levelled against him. A true copy of the reply of charge-sheet dated 2nd December, 1996 is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In para 11 of the writ petition it is stated that having submitted reply to the charge-sheet the petitioner waited for some favourable response from the inquiry officer in case he was satisfied with the petitioner's stands, otherwise there was no way out except to participate in departmental inquiry as per direction of inquiry officer but the petitioner was neither informed by inquiry officer about any date for commencement of the departmental inquiry nor was allowed to explain his stand during the inquiry in defence of his case and in para 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that the inquiry officer without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner submitted his inquiry report only on the basis of petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet in a most illegal and arbitrary manner at the instigation of respondent No. 2. In para 13 of the writ petition it is further stated that the inquiry report submitted by inquiry officer is not in accordance with law as the petitioner was neither informed about the date of commencement of inquiry nor was afforded any opportunity of hearing, cross-examining and producing own witnesses in defence of his case. In para 14 of the writ petition it is stated that surprisingly enough the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4/5-2-1997 alongwith copy of inquiry report without disclosing the nature of punishment. A true copy of inquiry report and show cause notice dated 15-2-1997 are on record as Annexures-6 and 7 of the writ petition. On receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 4-3-1997 assailing the findings recorded by inquiry officer. A true copy of reply of show cause notice dated 4-3-1997 sent to the authority concerned through registered post is on record as Annexure-8 of the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner was served with order of dismissal from service dated 1-4-1997 passed by respondent No. 4 without considering the reply of show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. A copy of order of dismissal dated 1-4-1997 is on record as Annexure-9 of the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal, in that regard he was informed by a registered letter dated 23-9-1998 issued by respondent No. 4 that his appeal has been rejected by respondent No. 2 i. e. , Mr. Vijai Shanker Pandey in the meeting of Committee of Management dated 15-11-1997. A true copy of the order dated 15-11-1997 is on record as Annexure-15 of the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition. In reply to the averments contained in various paragraphs of the writ petition a detail counter- affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents sworn by Sri Narottame Patel, wherein the impugned action taken against the petitioner has been sought to be justified by the respondents, the details of which shall be given hereinafter at relevant place, wherever it would be needed.
(3.) HEARD Sri T. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Shanker Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned Counsel for the respondents. In view of various assertions made in the writ petition Sri T. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner is farce exercise as after reply to the charge-sheet submitted by petitioner no disciplinary inquiry has at all been held against him. While elaborating his arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in respect of said disciplinary inquiry neither any date and place of inquiry has been intimated to the petitioner nor the inquiry has been held in his presence nor any witness has been examined in support of the charges nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine any such witness and given further opportunity to lead his oral and documentary evidence in support of his defence. As a matter of fact the inquiry officer without holding any disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner has straight way proceeded to prepare an inquiry report whereby the charges were found proved against him and submitted the same to the disciplinary authority, where upon a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has replied the same but even reply of show cause notice has not been considered by disciplinary authority wrongly saying that petitioner did not reply the show cause notice and impugned order dated 4-1-1997 has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service, against which the petitioner has filed appeal but the appeal was also dismissed. Thus, the entire disciplinary inquiry held against the petitioner is vitiated under law on account of utter violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, thus the petitioner has been denied opportunity of hearing to have his say in the matter prior to the impugned order has been passed against him. In support of his submission learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon several decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, which shall be referred hereinafter at appropriate places.;