Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Following orders were passed in the matter on 19.8.2019:- "Following orders were passed in the matter on 2.8.2019:- "An order of termination was previously passed against the petitioner on 10th April 2017. This order was quashed by this Court on 11.08.2017 on the ground that no enquiry was conducted in the matter. Liberty was given to the respondents to proceed. No enquiry, however, was conducted. In contempt proceedings, bailable warrants were issued against the opposite party on 11.04.2019, where after an order of termination dated 31.08.2018 has been produced before the Court. It is submitted that this order suffers the same error, inasmuch as after petitioner's reply was submitted no date, time and place of holding enquiry was fixed and the Enquiry Officer has submitted report on the basis of which the impugned order is passed. Submission is that despite an earlier adjudication made by this Court, the authorities have proceeded to act in similar fashion and have virtually reiterated the earlier order passed by them. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter, by the next date fixed. Post as fresh once again on 19th August 2019." Pursuant to the orders passed, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shamli, which is taken on record. The instructions recite that pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 11.8.2017, in earlier writ petition no. 35936 of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. As per instructions, such an opportunity was given on 21.6.2018 and since his explanation was not found satisfactory, as such, the authorities have proceeded to pass the fresh order. It is unfortunate that the authority, who has furnished the instructions, has not cared to read the earlier order passed by this Court. It would, therefore, be necessary to reproduce the observation of this Court contained in the earlier writ petition and the same is extracted hereinafter:- "Petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on certain charges after he was placed under suspension. By the notice dated 24th March, 2017, a final opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his reply on the allegation levelled. Petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on 31st March, 2017. The order of punishment records that this reply was not found satisfactory. However, instead of proceeding to conduct an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer within the next three days has proceeded to submit an inquiry report on 3rd April, 2017, on the basis of which an order of termination has been passed on 10th April, 2017. The order is challenged on the ground that absolutely no consideration is reflected in the order with regard to the explanation furnished by the petitioner in the matter, and even if such explanation was not accepted, the inquiry officer ought to have proceeded to fixed the date for holding of inquiry and thereafter opportunity of adducing evidence etc. ought to have been given, but no such procedure has been followed. It is alleged that impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal, which has already been preferred. Law is settled that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining of writ petition. Denial of principle of natural justice is one of the accepted exceptions to the Rule of pursuing alternative remedy. [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1]. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as absolutely no inquiry has been conducted in the matter and the order of punishment is passed in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, it would not be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue his appeal. Having considered the submission, this Court finds that admittedly last notice to submit a reply was given to the petitioner on 24th March, 2017. A reply to the charge sheet was given on 31st March, 2017. No date, time or place was thereafter fixed for holding of enquiry. No oral evidence was adduced either. Inquiry Officer, however, has submitted a report within three days of the filing of the reply by the petitioner, and based thereupon, the petitioner's services have been terminated. Petitioner has also been opportunity to controvert the findings given in the inquiry report. In such circumstances, denial of principle of natural justice is apparent on record. The order of termination consequently cannot be sustained, and is accordingly set aside. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed from the stage the inquiry proceedings have gone bad. It would be open for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension and to proceed further from the stage of submission of reply by the petitioner. This course is being left open for the respondents, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.D. ECIL v. B. karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727. The proceedings, as per the liberty given, be concluded preferably within a period of four months, from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate. The question of grant of back wages shall abide by the ultimate outcome of such proceedings." This Court had clearly recorded that no enquiry was conducted and the manner of enquiry was also indicated which was expected to be followed before the disciplinary proceedings could be concluded. The authorities apparently have not read the order of the Court and have misunderstood it as merely enabling the employee concerned to an opportunity of hearing. The question of opportunity of hearing would arise much later. There has to be first an enquiry in accordance with law. In the absence of enquiry, in the manner suggested in the previous order of this Court, no order could have been passed against the petitioner. The District Panchayat Officer is a district level officer and is expected to at least read the orders passed by this Court carefully. This does not appear to have been done by him. Before proceeding further, it would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the officer concerned to file his personal affidavit and to clarify as to what is understood by him as being the course required to be followed under the orders of the Court. The officer shall also clarify as to why adverse remarks be not made against him for it to be placed in his service record and its copy be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, for an appropriate endorsement to be made in the service book of the officer concerned. This course is necessary as it is repeatedly occurring before this Court that despite an earlier order passed by this Court the authorities continue flout the same and violating the law without even referring to it or taking note of the orders of this Court. It is unfortunate that the orders of the Court are even not being read by the officers. The required affidavit would be filed by the next date fixed. Let this matter appear as fresh once again on 6.9.2019."
(2.) District Panchayat Raj Officer, Shamli, has filed an affidavit in which the earlier stand taken is reiterated. It appears that the officer is oblivious of the fact that once the charged officer denies the charges, there exists requirement of holding enquiry, and that unless such requirement is adhered to, there would be no occasion for affording opportunity of personal hearing. This Court finds that despite specific directions and observations of the Court, the authority concerned has proceeded to ignore the observations and has virtually reiterated the stand taken earlier. Despite Court's observation, the authority concerned has still not cared to read the order and has reiterated the stand taken earlier. This cannot be approved of. The manner in which the authority concerned has proceeded to defy the previous order passed by this Court would clearly go to show that neither the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been adhered nor the required enquiry in compliance of the principles of natural justice have not been undertaken.
(3.) No date, time and place has been fixed for enquiry nor any statement etc. has been recorded of persons, which is sought to be relied upon against the petitioner. The authority concerned appears to have laboured under a misconception that what is expected of him is merely to give an opportunity of hearing. The opportunity of hearing has to be an effective opportunity and the stage in that regard would arise only after the enquiry officer proceeds to hold an enquiry. Being a quasi-judicial authority, the enquiry officer is expected to record statements and rely upon materials, which have been produced in the departmental enquiry. Without any enquiry conducted as per law the question of grant of opportunity would not arise. Even in the affidavit, which has been filed, this aspect of the matter is ignored notwithstanding the previous order of this Court. Consequently, the order impugned dated 17.9.2018 cannot be sustained and stands quashed.;