Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 186 of 2001 Petitioner :- Lucknow Development Authority Through Its Chairman Respondent :- Musafir Singh Petitioner Counsel :- Vikas Singh Respondent Counsel :- A.Kalra,V.Singh Hon'ble Pradeep Kant,J.
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Mohan Shukla appearing for the appellants and Sri Shyam
Mohan for the respondent.
Judgment and order dated 19.04.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in
writ petition no. 6256 (S/S) of 1999, has been assailed by the Lucknow
Development Authority, by means of which the writ petition preferred by the
respondents, challenging the order of dismissal from service dated 05.11.1999
has been set aside by the learned Single Judge with the liberty to the
appellants to hold inquiry afresh from the stage of issuing charge sheet after
taking into account the directions issued in the order impugned herein.
We are informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that despite the
aforesaid liberty granted by the learned Single Judge the L.D.A. did not
initiate or hold fresh inquiry against the respondent as directed by the learned
Single Judge and, therefore, the liberty granted has not been availed of and the
respondent is continuing in the services.
On merits of the case, we have gone through the order and find that after
submission of reply to the charge sheet, no date, time and place of the inquiry
was fixed nor the respondent was associated in the inquiry by the inquiry
officer.
In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, it has been stated that on
careful consideration of the reply of the charge sheet, the order had been
passed. Thus no inquiry was conducted after submission of the reply to the
charge sheet and merely on the basis of the reply submitted by the respondent-
petitioner, the order of dismissal from service was passed by the appellant
herein.
Learned Single Judge has given detailed reasons for quashing the dismissal
order.
We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The special appeal is dismissed.
We further clarify that in view of the fact that L.D.A. has not chosen to
continue or initiate disciplinary proceedings for more than 9 years, now it is
not open to the appellants to seek liberty to continue or initiate fresh inquiry.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010
Im