- (1.) THIS writ petition by Mohd. Javed Khan challenges the order of dismissal from service dated 20. 2. 2006 passed by the Secretary, State Haj Committee.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Clerk in State Haj Committee on 1. 12. 1986. He was promoted on the post of Senior Administrative Officer on 18. 2. 1998, and thereafter, he was appointed on the post of Assistant Secretary (Haj) by the Chairman, State Haj Committee on 28. 1. 2000. He faced a reversion order from the post of Assistant Secretary (Haj) to the post of Senior Clerk on 6. 5. 2003, which was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court, in which an interim order of stay was passed on 14. 5. 2003, staying the reversion order. THE petitioner was, thereafter suspended within a span of 21 days on 2. 6. 2003, but the same was revoked on 2. 8. 2003 and he was allowed to resume duty on 2. 8. 2003. Since even after revocation of the suspension order and allowing him to join duties, the petitioner was not being paid salary, therefore, he filed a writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2003 for payment of salary, and on 10. 2. 2004, the Court had directed that the payment be made including arrears of salary to the petitioner. THE order was again not complied with, compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition, wherein notices were issued. On issuance of notice of contempt, an application for recall of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2003 was filed, wherein it has come before the Court that the petitioner was not allowed to join after revocation of the order of suspension and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to resume duty. THE Court also observed that the question regarding payment of salary from the date of revocation of suspension order till joining of the petitioner shall be decided by the Secretary, Minorities Welfare, Government of U. P. THE Secretary, Minorities Welfare, Government of U. P. has made certain observations on 16. 4. 2004, saying that the petitioner was being harassed by the opposite parties. Despite all litigations, the petitioner was not paid salary, and an enquiry officer was appointed, treating the petitioner to be under suspension, although his suspension already stood revoked. The enquiry was conducted by Mohd. Mustafa, and accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed. When the petitioner was served a charge-sheet, he filed Writ Petition No. 694 (SB) of 2004, in which he raised a question that he has already been exonerated from the charges, and therefore, a second enquiry cannot be initiated for the same charges. In the said writ petition, the following order was passed by this Court on 28. 5. 2004: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . We, therefore, provide as an interim measure that in case the present enquiry is for the same charges in which the petitioner has already been exonerated or the enquiry has been concluded finally, by passing a final order, no further action shall be taken for the same charges. However, it is clarified that in case the earlier enquiry if was for the same charges but has not been concluded even then, this order would not come in the way of the respondent to conclude the enquiry. " We are informed that the said writ petition is still pending. However, in the meantime, an enquiry report was submitted, which according to the petitioner, is back dated and in the said enquiry, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and final orders have been passed, which are impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has specifically argued that the enquiry proceedings were without jurisdiction and that the enquiry report was back dated. The fact, however, is that in this enquiry, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate therein by the enquiry officer, as no date, time and place was ever fixed nor was communicated to him. Sri K. A. Khan appearing for the respondents, after perusing the records stated that after the submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner, no date has been fixed for holding enquiry nor the petitioner was associated with the enquiry. This statement was recorded in our order dated 21. 11. 2007, which is on the order sheet.;