DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was working as Collection Peon in Tehsil Mankapur was placed under suspension by order dated 13.1.1995 and thereafter he was served a charge-sheet dated 13.4.1995 with the allegation that he was habitual to be absent from duty and misused the receipt book for misappropriation of money recovered from the villagers. In response to the charge-sheet dated 13.4.1995, the petitioner has submitted a reply dated 29.4.1995. Copy of the charge-sheet and reply submitted by the petitioner has been filed as Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. After receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 15.6.1995 and after receipt of the enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 16.10.1997 was served which was also replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 29.10.1996. A copy of the show cause notice has been filed as Annexure No.5. After receipt of the petitioner's reply, by the impugned order dated 12.12.1996(Annexure-6), the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority by the order dated 25.4.1997 (Annexure-7).
(2.) SOLITARY argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer has not held any further enquiry. A specific pleading has been made in paras 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition that no specific date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry. No oral evidence was recorded with liberty to cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry officer has also not provided opportunity of hearing to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2005 LCD 495 Govind Lal Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others, 2002(2) LBESR 920 (SC) Sher Bahadur versus Union of India and others, 2000(1) LBESR The High Court of Judicature at Bombay through the Registrar versus Shashi Kant S. Patil and another, 2006(1) LBESR 899 Bhupendra Kumar Misra versus Managing Director, U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and others, 2009 ESC 1594 Shashidhar Tripathi versus State of U.P. and others and 2009(2) LBESR 175 Govind Lal Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others. Though while filing counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was informed with regard to date, time and place of the enquiry by the enquiry officer but no specific averment has been made with regard to the proceeding taken place on the respective dates. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the oral evidence was recorded with opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. It has also not been stated that on what date, the petitioner was directed to appear and lead evidence in defence. It appears that the enquiry officer has submitted a report straightway after receipt of the reply from the petitioner without recording any evidence.
(3.) NOW , it is well settled that Departmental enquiry means service of chargesheet with opportunity to delinquent employee to submit a reply, thereafter it shall be necessary to record oral evidence to prove the allegations contained in chargesheet. In case the delinquent employee does not cooperate even then it shall be incumbent upon the enquiry officer to proceed exparte and record oral evidence in support of allegations contained in the chargesheet. Thereafter, it shall be necessary to provide the opportunity to the delinquent employee to lead evidence in defence coupled with opportunity of personal hearing. After receipt of report from enquiry officer it shall be necessary for the punishing authority to serve a show cause notice alongwith copy of enquiry report and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law vide M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88, Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India and others (2002) 7 SCC 142, B.P. Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and others 1983 (1) LCD 169, Onkar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 1984(2) LCD 396, Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others (2001) 1 UPLBEC 331 and Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Fedration Ltd. 2003 (21) LCD 610.;