RAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) Major penalty of reduction in rank was imposed upon petitioner which was challenged before Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 392 of 2010 on the ground that procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1999") was not followed at all and no oral enquiry was conducted by Enquiry officer. After service of charge sheet and receiving reply by petitioner, Enquiry officer submitted report and thereafter disciplinary authority proceeded to impose punishment. Procedure prescribed is patently illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. Tribunal, however, has dismissed claim petition observing that charges were founded only on documentary evidence and no prejudice has been shown to have caused to claimant respondent. In our view the approach of Tribunal is clearly erroneous.

(3.) A bare perusal of charges clearly shows that there are allegations of corruption, black marketing. The documentary evidence included complaints and reports submitted by authorities. Unless authors of complaint are examined and are made available for cross examination those evidence were not admissible for evidence.