ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 15th March, 2014; whereby petitioner has been compulsory retired on the basis of disciplinary action initiated against him.
(2.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to filing of this petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1978. He continued to work as such and was ultimately promoted to the post of Section Officer in the year 2012. Charge was assigned to the petitioner to handle LIC and Old Age Pension claims of Advocates within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It appears that certain complaints were made with regard to performance of duties assigned to the petitioner, which led to a preliminary enquiry report being called for in the matter. Such a preliminary enquiry report appears to have been submitted on 2.4.2013. This preliminary enquiry report was then made the basis for issuance of a charge-sheet upon the petitioner on 12th May, 2013. Disciplinary proceedings, accordingly, were initiated against the petitioner.
(3.) Petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations made against him in the charge-sheet. Interestingly, the respondents, on the date of service of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner i.e. 12th May, 2013 also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation after observing that petitioner is liable to be dismissed from service. Thereafter no enquiry apparently was conducted, inasmuch as, no date, time or place was fixed for holding of enquiry. Ultimately, an enquiry report has been submitted against the petitioner on 7.7.2013. The enquiry report appears to be based upon the preliminary enquiry report as well as the charges levelled against the petitioner and the reply submitted to it. These materials have ultimately found the basis for passing of the order impugned dated 15th March, 2014. The order records that petitioner is being compulsory retired in exercise of powers under Fundamental Rule 56. The order impugned is assailed on following grounds:- (i) Punishment of compulsory retirement is not one of the punishments provided for in Rule 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council Employees Service Rules, 2004 and, therefore, a punishment not specified in the rules, could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242. (ii) It is urged that no disciplinary enquiry in the eyes of law was actually conducted in the matter, inasmuch as, only a preliminary enquiry report was submitted behind the back of the petitioner, whereafter a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and without fixing any date for conduct of enquiry and by denying the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses etc., the order of punishment has been passed, which is violative of principles of natural justice and is otherwise inconsistent with the Rules of 2004. (iii) It is also submitted that the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56, which have been invoked by the Chairman, U.P. Bar Council, was not even applicable and that the then Chairman lacked basis understanding of law, as would be clearly reflected from his action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. ;