Siddharth, J. - (1.) Heard Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Shri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for quashing of the punishment order dated 14.09.2009, passed by Nagar Ayukt, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar and the appellate order dated 21.03.2013, passed by Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur. Finally direction to the respondents for making payment of full wages to the petitioner has been sought.
(3.) The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was suspended from service by the Nagar Ayukt, Kanpur Nagar Nigam, by the order dated 21.05.2008 on the charge that he was drunk while on duty and despite objection of the gardeners, he drove vehicle over the water pipe, in Kargil Park, which caused the water to flow back to the pump and the clamp and nipple of the pipe came out and the water got wasted. The second charge of negligence and indiscipline was also framed against him. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire the charges. The enquiry officer issued a charge sheet dated 09.09.2008 to the petitioner, which was duly replied by the petitioner on 12.02.2009, denying that he never went to the Kargil Park on 08.05.2008. The petitioner was served with a second show cause notice dated 21.07.2009 annexing therewith enquiry report dated 30.06.2009. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 06.08.2009 to the same and categorically stated that the petitioner was not medically examined to prove that he was drunken at the time which is being alleged in the charge sheet. There is no proof of his being intoxicated stage at the relevant point of time. The petitioner had also stated that Sri Sanjay Mishra, Generator Operator and Traffic Cell, Junior Engineer and Mate have submitted their report that the petitioner was with them at the time which is being alleged in the charge sheet and this fact has not been looked into by the Inquiry Officer while submitting his report and all these facts were brought to the knowledge of the Inquiry Officer by the petitioner which clearly indicates that the Inquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a routine manner without looking into the documentary evidences being filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to cross- examine those employees who have given statements against him before the Inquiry Officer which clearly indicates that the enquiry report had been submitted in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent no.3 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed punishment order dated 14.09.2009 by which the petitioner was punished by imposing upon him the punishment of putting him back to his original pay scale which is a major penalty being imposed upon the petitioner which has resulted into great financial loss to the petitioner. Against the punishment order dated 14.09.2009 the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no.2 stating therein that the respondent no.3 had passed the punishment order without looking into the evidences being filed by the petitioner/employee. The respondent no.2 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by an order dated 21.03.2013. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 took four years in deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner.;