Dr. Kailash Nath Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Sanjai Bhasin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Manik Sinha, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and perused the record.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after serving charge-sheet and receipt of the reply thereof, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed. This fact has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the State on the basis of instruction received vide letter dated 10.01.2011 of the State Government, a copy of which is taken on record.

It is settled proposition of law that regular inquiry means after service of charge-sheet and receipt of reply to the charge-sheet, oral evidence should be recorded with opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, the delinquent employee has a right to lead evidence in defence and opportunity of personal hearing should be given by the inquiry officer. Even if the government employee does not cooperate with the enquiry proceeding, it shall not give escape to the enquiry officer from concluding the enquiry in accordance with law. It shall always be incumbent upon the enquiry officer to record finding, may be by ex parte proceeding and thereafter submit a report to the competent authority. It is also necessary that the documents relied upon by the prosecution should be proved vide JT 2010(1)SC 618 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha 1990 LCD 486 Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of U.P., 1998 LCD 199 Avatar Singh v. State of U.P. 1979 7 SCC 60 Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and Another, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal 1998 SC 117 Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and others1985 SC 1121 Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, State of U.P. and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, State of U.P. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha.

In the present case, since, admittedly the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed and keeping in view the fact that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed in pursuance of enquiry report prepared without following the principle of natural justice, it suffers from substantial illegality and writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2010, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and also liberty is given to the opposite parties to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In case, Respondent wants to proceed with the enquiry then they may proceed afresh. Let a fresh enquiry be held, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Payment of arrears and salary and other benefits shall be subject to fresh enquiry, if any.

However, the Petitioner shall be restored in service forthwith with due salary.

No order as to costs.