S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Sugar Corporation.
(2.) AFTER conducting departmental inquiry the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 2.9.1999 passed by the Managing Director, U. P. Sugar Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as disciplinary authority) and the appeal of the petitioner against the said dismissal order has been rejected by the order dated 11.4.2000. Aggrieved thereto the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under : "The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is incorporated under the provisions of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and is registered as the Government Company under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1982 the corporation made recruitment on the post of Chief Engineer in one of it's unit wherein the petitioner was successful and was appointed on probation on 13.10.1982. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 18.7.1987, w.e.f. 6.11.1983. In the year 1998 the petitioner was posted as Chief Engineer at Mohiddinpur Unit, district Meerut where he took charge on 14.12.1996. He was placed under suspension on 30.6.1998 in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 18.9.1998, copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which contains five charges in respect to functioning of the petitioner at Mohiddinpur. Reply was submitted on 8.10.1998 denying the charges. No oral inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and on the contrary he sought clarification from the petitioner on certain aspects contained in petitioner's reply and required the petitioner to clarify the same vide letter dated 22/23.4.1999. The petitioner thereafter was attached with the Headquarter of the corporation vide order dated 29.7.1999. Aggrieved whereto the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1317(S/B) of 1999 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.8.1999, copy whereof is on record as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It appears that in the meantime the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 3.7.1999 holding charges No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 as proved and charge No. 4 as not proved. Copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2 alongwith his letter dated 3.7.1999 directing the petitioner to submit his comments within 15 days. The petitioner submitted his reply to inquiry report vide letter dated 11.8.1999, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Besides above enquiry the petitioner was also served with another charge-sheet dated 6.10.1998 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) in respect to certain allegations of period when he had worked as Chief Engineer at Meerut Unit in 1996. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20.10.1998 and thereafter without holding any oral enquiry, a report dated 26.4.1999 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer Sri R. P. Srivastava, Chief Manager (Purchase) (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) along his covering letter dated 19.8.1999 to respondent No. 2. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the said inquiry report also which was given to him vide letter dated 23.8.1999. The respondent No. 2 considering both the aforesaid inquiry reports passed the order of dismissal on 2.9.1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Challenging the dismissal order, the petitioner again approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1062/1999 which was disposed of by the order dated 21.12.1999 on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal and the petitioner was given liberty to the remedy of appeal. Thereafter his appeal has been rejected by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 6.3.2000 and the said decision has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.4.2000 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner though has challenged the impugned orders on various grounds but ultimately has confined his submissions in respect to the finding on charge Nos. 3 and 5 and second charge-sheet (Annexure-14) and the ultimate decision taken pursuance thereof. He submitted that so far as charges No. 1 and 2 are concerned, which have been found proved against the petitioner, they were of technical nature, i.e., violation of process of allotment of supply contract, though petitioner has justified his decision that due to emergent circumstances he had to take immediate steps, which was in the interest of unit; but in respect to charges No. 3 and 5, he categorically submitted that findings of Inquiry Officer in respect to said charges as also the approach of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority is wholly illegal, perverse and contrary to the material on record. The charge levelled against the petitioner in fact has not been proved but still he has been held guilty of charge Nos. 3 and 5 also. Therefore, the decision of the disciplinary authority based on the aforesaid finding is also illegal and liable to be set-aside. He further contended that so far as second inquiry is concerned pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 6.10.1998 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition), it is evident that no oral inquiry was ever conducted by the respondents and yet the findings of the said inquiry have been taken into account for imposing a major penalty upon the petitioner which is absolutely illegal and liable to be set-aside.
(3.) PER contra, Sri R. P. Srivastava learned counsel for the corporation relying upon the inquiry report as well as the order of the disciplinary authority contended that there is no error apparent on the face of record and therefore no interference is called for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.;