- (1.) PRADEEP Kant and Ran Vijai Singh, JJ. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. N. Bharadwaj and Sri Alok Sinha, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner, serving as Lekhpal, was suspended vide order dated 24. 4. 1984. He was thereafter served with a charge-sheet, which contained four charges ; the four charges are not in controversy but suffice would be to as that the petitioner, who was working as Lekhpal was suspended for the alleged misconduct committed by him for which an F. I. R. was also lodged against one of the charge of breaking open the lock and stealing the records. In the criminal case, the petitioner had been acquitted, vide judgment and order dated 21. 4. 1987. After submission of the enquiry report, the punishment order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed on 27. 2. 1985. THE petitioner being aggrieved preferred a claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, which was contested by the State and ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal on 13. 11. 1990. The petitioner, inter alia, pleaded before the Tribunal as well as before this Court that since he was acquitted in the criminal trial, therefore, the punishment of dismissal could not have been sustained and that there was earlier a report of one another Enquiry Officer, namely, Sri Surya Bhan Singh, Survey Naib Tehsildar, who had exonerated him but without any knowledge and information to the petitioner, a second Enquiry Officer was appointed, on whose report the dismissal order was passed, which is per se illegal. The points pressed by the petitioner during the course of hearing before the Tribunal are that he was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the enquiry and that he was never informed of the date, time and place of enquiry. So far as the acquittal in the criminal trial is concerned, the Tribunal has rejected the said plea and rightly by saying that the charge relating to the offence for which he was tried was totally different from the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. We do not find any reason to interfere on this ground.
(3.) SO far as the next argument that he was exonerated by Sri Surya Bhan Singh, who was appointed earlier the Enquiry Officer and that the proceedings conducted by the subsequent Enquiry Officer are vitiated because of the reasons indicated in his argument, we would like to put on record that it is absolutely misconceived plea raised by the petitioner. The charge-sheet was issued on 10. 10. 1984 and before that no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. That being so, the question of submitting any enquiry report in the disciplinary proceedings on 31. 8. 1984 does not arise, as no other charge-sheet was issued to him. It is also admitted to the petitioner that it is this charge-sheet to which he submitted reply on 31. 10. 1984. However, the last submission made by the petitioner's counsel that after submitting of the reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings finds support from the averments made in the writ petition, namely, para 7, to which there is no answer in the counter-affidavit negativing the plea that at no point of time the petitioner was summoned by the Enquiry Officer to participate in the proceedings. The reply of the State and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner had not asked for any such hearing, therefore, the opportunity of such hearing was not required to be afforded is based on absolutely misreading of the relevant rules of holding enquiry. Apart from the service rules as were in vogue on the relevant date, Civil Service Regulations, 1930 and in particular, Rule 55, provide that affording of such an opportunity is an integral and essential part of principles of natural justice. In case the delinquent is not afforded reasonable opportunity for putting his defence, the order passed, having civil consequences upon him, would stand vitiated.;