- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. in writ petition No. 11167 of 1996 the order of suspension dated 13-11-1995 and in the writ petition No. 16017 of 1996 the order of dismissal from service, passed against the petitioner are under challenge, therefore, both the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of finally by this common judgment and order. The writ petition No. 16017of 1996 is treated as the leading petition.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his dismissal from service dated 27-3-1996 and prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature otcertiorari quashing the said order. It was on 19-5-1983 that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Collectorate Deoria. On 15-12-1994 he was posted as Arms Clerk in the office of the District Magistrate of the said District, under the administration control of the Ad ditional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Deoria. Sri Dharmendra Deo the then District Magistrate was transferred and in his place Sri P. Y Jagan Mohan took over the charge of the office of District Magistrate, who asked the petitioner to send all 314 files of the cases in which licence were issued by the former District Magistrate. The said files are stated to have been handed over the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, according to the petitioner asked him for purchasing a re volver out of the money recovered from the arm licencees in the name of the District Magistrate for which he had the licence. The petitioner politely shown his inability to ful fil the demand of the District Magistrate on which he felt annoyed. The said files were thereafter sent back to the petitioner and on 13-11-1995 the petitioner was suspended from service on vague charges. Simul taneously a first information report under Sections 419/420/467/471, IPC was also lodged against him. On the basis of the said report the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail. The lock of almirah which was in the charge of the petitioner was broken open in his absence and valuable documents and records were removed from the same by the officials under the orders of the District Magistrate. Thereafter the police has sub mitted the chargesheet under Section 409, IPC against the petitioner. However, since there was no reliable evidence in proof of the said chargesheet, the petitioner was dis charged by the Court. While in jail the petit-oner suffered severe heart attack. He was therefore admitted in District Hospital and remained there from 29-11-1995 to 3-1-1996. While in jail a chargesheet was sought to be served upon him but since the petitioner was not in a position to give detailed reply of the charges levelled against him, he filed a short reply and requested for supply of the documents and inspection of the record, on the basis of which the charges were framed. However, the enquiry officer instead of supplying the relevant documents to the petitioner, insisted upon him to co operate with the enquiry as he was in hurry to conclude the same. The petitioner, as he was not in a position to participate in the enquiry on account of his serious ailment, requested for postponement of the enquiry, bat his request was not acceded to by the enquiring officer. The petitioner, therefore approached this Court and filled the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6073 of 1996. In the said writ petition this Court passed order dated 15- 2-1996, which is as follows:-- "heard Sri D. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only prayer made in the writ petition is that the Disciplinary Authority be directed not to proceed with the enquiry until the petitioner is released on bail. The petitioner is languishing in jail in connection with a criminal case under Sec tions 420/419/468/467/471 I. P. C. which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has pos sibly been converted under, 409 I. P. C. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the principles of natural justice, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the Disciplinary Authority shall keep the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance until the petitioner is released on bail. The petitioner shall inform the Disciplinary Authority as soon as he is released on bail. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. " The aforesaid order was communi cated by the petitioner to the authorities concerned on 26-2-1996. It was on 1-3-19% that the petitioner was released on bail, but he could not fully recover from his ailment and was immediately thereafter on 2-3-1996 taken to Gorakhpur for medical checkup, where his blood pressure was found to be quite high and was advised bed rest. The petitioner remained there at Gorakhpur up to 5-3-1996. While returning from Gorakhpur he had the occasion to see a notice dated 23-3-1996 in the newspaper to the effect that a shows cause notice dated 20- 3-1996 was sought to be served upon the petitioner but the same could not be served and it was pasted on the gate of the petitioner's house and further that 26-3-1996 was fixed for appearance of the petitioner before the. District Magistrate, Deoria. Since on account of his ailment, it was not possible for the petitioner to appear before the District Magistrate and to par ticipate in the enquiry, the petitioner there fore had to file a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11167 of 1996 in this Court. This Court on 29-3-1996 was pleased to pass the follow ing order: -
(3.) AS it is evident from the aforesaid order, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner were stayed by this Court. The aforesaid order is stayed to have been communicated to Senior Administra tive Officer and District Magistrate, Deoria on 30-3-1996. However, the petitioner learnt that he was dismissed from service by the District Magistrate, Deoria. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 27-3-1996 the petitioner has filed the present petition. As prayed by learned counsel for the contesting respondent time was granted to file counter affidavit and the same was filed. The petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit.;