Court No. - 6 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7452 of 2007 Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home & 2 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Diwakar Singh,Sudhir Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has
assailed the order dated 20.9.2007 a contained in Annexure
No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby the services of the
petitioner has been terminated.
The petitioner was appointed as a Bandi Rakshak in the
year 2005. While the petitioner was posted at Adarsh
Karagar, Lucknow, he was issued a show cause notice from
the office of Senior Superintendent, Adarsh Karagar,
Lucknow on 20.07.2007 to show cause with regard to the
Homeguards Certificate produced by him at the time of
seeking appointment. The petitioner submitted his reply
within the time granted. Then by the impugned order dated
20.9.2007, he has been terminated from service.
Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
besides others, is that no formal inquiry was ever conducted
in the matter nor any enquiry report was submitted and prior
to the passing of the impugned order, no opportunity was
given to him and thus the procedure as laid down under the
U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 with regard to imposition of major penalty has not been
followed.
Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules lays down the procedure for
imposing major penalty. The same categorically provides
that before imposing any major penalty on a government
servant an enquiry shall be held. The manner in which the
enquiry is to be held has been clearly given in the said rule.
If the charges not admitted by the charged employee, the
enquiry officer is required to record oral and documentary
evidence and submit his report. On completion of enquiry, a
report is to be submitted to the disciplinary authority along
with all the records of the enquiry. Thereafter, if the
disciplinary authority is of the view that any penalty is to be
imposed, a copy of the enquiry report is to be given the
charged employee who may be required to submit his
representation within a reasonable time. In the present case,
the respondents in the counter affidavit have not stated that
any enquiry report was submitted and thus the question of
giving opportunity to the petitioner to file his representation
against the enquiry report does not arise. Thus, it is clear the
procedure as laid down under the Rules of 1999 has not
been complied with by the respondents prior to the passing
of the impugned order. The order thus deserves to be set-
aside.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order
dated 20.9.2007 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits. However, it is made
clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh
order, in accordance with law, after complying with the
procedure as laid down in the Rules of 1999.
Order Date: 30.7.2010
RKM.