AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
The petitioner, who is a night guard in the Civil Court at Farrukhabad, was charge-sheeted in relation to an incident dated 6A.2007 where certain unknown thieves attempted to fell Sandal trees inside the Campus of the Civil Court at Farrukhabad. The charge against the petitioner is that he was not present on his duty which resulted in such an incident. The defence taken by the petitioner is that as a matter of fact, he was in ailment and suffering from Piles and as a result of bleeding he had also been taken to the hospital, for which the medical certificates and the affidavit of the landlord, where the petitioner resides, were filed to substantiate the aforesaid plea of defence.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no evidence was led to the contrary to controvert the medical certificates issued or the aforesaid plea of the petitioner and consequently an inquiry report was submitted in favour of the petitioner on 16.5.2007. The same Enquiry Officer was directed by the District fudge to submit a fresh inquiry report and on the very next day, the Enquiry Officer changed his opinion overnight with a fresh report indicating that the petitioner had not afforded any plausible explanation with regard to his short leave absence, for which medical was being claimed. On the basis of the second inquiry report, the petitioner has been punished and his appeal filed against the same has been rejected by this Court on the Administrative side. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner''s absence was fully justified and he had proved his defence to the hilt by producing cogent evidence, which remains uncontroverted and as such the petitioner could not have been punished. For the same reason the appellate order is also being assailed.
Learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the plea set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the fact that he was absent from duty is admitted by the petitioner himself. It is further contended that the absence of the petitioner led to the incident and, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the Punishing Authority or by the Appellate Authority.
I have perused the record, it is evident that the same Enquiry Officer submitted a fresh report on the same set of evidence without giving his explanation as to why such a report was necessary on the asking of the then District Judge. The Enquiry Officer himself has recorded that the petitioner had submitted medical certificates, which remains uncontroverted. In this view of the matter, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary there was nothing new for Enquiry Officer to have submitted a fresh report upturning his earlier report, which was given 24 hours hence. This change of opinion even before the ink on the first inquiry report had dried was, therefore, clearly motivated at the instance of the then District Judge. In my opinion, such action violates the principles of fair play and the procedure adopted for punishing the petitioner is, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice. Not only this, it is against the weight of evidence on record. The District Judge, therefore, erred in awarding punishment to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner had successfully proved that he was absent from duty for a plausible reason namely that he was medically unfit and was being treated in the hospital. In the absence of any material to the contrary there was absolutely nothing for the District Judge to have punished the petitioner and the same error has been committed by the appellate authority.
Accordingly, the order dated 29.5.2007 and the appellate order dated 13.8.2008 are quashed.
The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits which shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.
The writ petition is allowed.