- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order dated 22-3-2000 passed by the respondent No. 3-Deputy District Magistrate, Bindki, District Fatehpur and the order dated 13-9-2004 passed by the respondent No. 2-the Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur. By the first order, punishments have been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as a Lekhpal, has suffered punishment of salary, being reverted to original pay scale. The petitioner has been denied the benefit of any emoluments other than the suspension allowance, for a period of suspension and, thirdly, adverse entry has been recorded on the service book of the petitioner. Against these orders of punishments, the petitioner filed an appeal to the respondent No. 2 under Rule 12 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and the respondent No. 2, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and has confirmed the three orders of punishment against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Lekhpal in Tehsil-Bindki, District Fatehpur. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 3-11-1999, by which, two allegations were made against the petitioner. It is the petitioner's contention that the charge-sheet, which was issued against the petitioner, was not supported by the evidence, which was to be used against the petitioner or the list of witnesses, which should have been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner states that he made a demand for the evidence which was to be used against him, but was not given an evidence and, therefore, he has written reply on 17- 11-1999.
(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had proceeded with the matter without conducting any enquiry and concluded proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the written reply given by him. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice on 2-3-2000. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 13-3-2000 and the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 22-3-2000 imposing three punishments as aforesaid. (1) Reversion of the original pay scale (2) No salary or emoluments to be paid for the period of suspension except the suspension allowance. (3) Regarding adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner. The petitioner took recourse to the filing of appeal under Section 11 of the Rules of 1999. The memo of appeal dated 10-5-2000 is on record and in that memo, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that the proceedings were concluded against the petitioner without conducting any enquiry into the matter. This plea was specifically taken in paragraph-6 of the memo of appeal. The petitioner, therefore, states that the appeal has been decided in violation to the provisions of Rule 7 (vii) of the Rules of 1999 which are quoted herein below : " (vii) Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence, which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. ";