JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on 2.11.1970 as Court Moharrir in the Urban Ceiling Department. He was later promoted as Reader. The petitioner remained on casual leave for three days from 15.3.1990 to 17.3.1990. Thereafter 18.3.1990 was Sunday and he moved a fresh application for casual leave for further three days from 19.3.1990 to 21.3.1990. He thus remained on casual leave for six days and thereafter joined duties on 22.3.1990. During this period there was rearrangement regarding allocation of work in the office. It is alleged that the petitioner did not handover files and hence on 29.3.1990 the office Almirah of the petitioner, in which the files were kept, was broken by the Deputy Director, Urban Land Ceiling and the files were taken in possession. Regarding the same, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Director, Urban Land Ceiling and the District Magistrate, Varanasi.
2. On 4.9.1990 the petitioner was placed under suspension on two charges. Firstly, for remaining on casual leave for six days without sanction; and secondly for lodging a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25675 of 1990 in which an interim stay order was granted on 12.10.1990 whereby the suspension of the petitioner was stayed but it was provided that the departmental enquiry could proceed. (The said writ petition was later dismissed in default on 28.1.2004). Then on 4.1.1992 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner levelling three charges, namely, (i) that he was remained on leave without sanction from 15.3.1990 to 21.3.1990; (ii) that he reported the matter relating to opening of his office Almirah to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi; and (iii) that there were 101 files missing from the office Almirah of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 1.2.1992. The enquiry report was submitted on. 10.6.1992 in which the petitioner was held guilty of the first two charges. With regard to the third charge, since all the files were found, hence the said charge was not proved against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the enquiry officer recommended for the punishment of censor entry to be awarded to the petitioner, alongwith withdrawal of one increment.
3. After a gap of ten years, a show cause notice was issued by the. disciplinary authority to the petitioner on 29.1.2002, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 7.3.2002. Then on 7.7.2005 the disciplinary authority (Deputy Director, Urban Land Ceiling passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Secretary of, the Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow. By order dated 11.5.2006, the said appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 7.7.2005 and 11.5.2006 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively, this writ petition has been filed.
4. I have heard Sri L.K. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. It has further been submitted that although the respondents concurred with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer but gave no reason to differ with the findings with regard to awarding of punishment and has imposed the ultimate punishment of dismissal from service, which is grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner, It was lastly contended that the disciplinary authority, who has passed the order dated 7.7.2005, was also holding charge of the Secretary of the Department concerned, who was the appellate authority also and as such the filing of appeal was a futile exercise.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the enquiry officer was not required to suggest the punishment to be awarded and as such the disciplinary authority was not bound by the same and accordingly the disciplinary authority rightly ignored such suggestion of the enquiry officer and awarded punishment to the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the facts and. circumstances of this case, the punishment of dismissal from service was fully justified.
7. The submission of the petitioner with regard to the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority being the same person is not borne out from the record and hence the same is not worthy of consideration. As regards the personal hearing to be given to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, since no evidence was led by either of the parties and the reply to the show cause notice was considered by the disciplinary authority the. requirement of personal hearing, in the facts of this case, was not necessary.
8. Coming to the last question with regard to the proportionality of the punishment vis-a-vis the charges proved against the petitioner, in my view, the awarding of ultimate punishment of dismissal from service on the charges of the petitioner having remained absent for six days, even if the same was without sanctioned leave and the petitioner having reported the matter relating to opening of the office Almirah to the Senior Superintendent of Police, is totally unjustified. It has come on record that the casual leave of six days had subsequently been sanctioned and the petitioner was paid his salary for the said period. It is also relevant that the main charge of the files being missing from the office Almirah of the petitioner, was not proved. The said charge was the only material charge which could warrant some major punishment. Since the causal leave was subsequently sanctioned, the said charge of the petitioner remaining absent for six days on casual leave would also not be very material. The action with regard to the petitioner informing the Senior Superintendent of Police of the office Almirah being opened forcibly could not be said to be very unjustified, as the same may have been done by the petitioner only as a matter of precaution.
9. Normally this Court does not interfere with the findings of fact and conclusions arrived at, as well as the punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings. Such interference is warranted only where the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to the charge which is proved against the petitioner. In the present case, it is admitted that no files were found missing from the office Almirah of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner had been continuing to work since the incident took place in the year 1990 till 2005 (when the impugned order was passed) and there has been no complaint from the side of the respondents (as nothing has been so mentioned in the counter affidavit) with regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner. In the facts of the present case I am of the detinue opinion that the two charges of remaining absent for six days (on casual leave) and the reporting of the matter of opening of office Almirah to the Senior Superintendent of Police are not sufficient to warrant the ultimate punishment of dismissal from service. The same shocks the conscience of the Court and thus interference is called for with the impugned order.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition stands allowed. The orders dated 7.7.2005 and 11.5.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Director, Urban Land Ceiling (U.P.), Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow and the respondent No. 1, the Principal Secretary, Awas, Bapu Bhawan, Lucknow respectively are quashed. The disciplinary authority is directed to take risen decision with regard to awarding of punishment in the light of the observations made hereinabove, within two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.