HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. 29 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36973 of 2010 Vijai Kumar Sinha Vs. State of U. P. and others. Hon. S. K. Singh, J.
Hon. Sabhajeet Yadav, J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this writ petition, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the State Officials, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent no. 4. Sri P. S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate appears for the Public Service Commission.
As pleadings are complete, both sides insisted for hearing and decision, therefore, matter was heard and is being decided.
By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.6.2010 (annexure no. 1) passed by the Secretary, Higher Education/respondent no. 2 by which petitioner has been removed from service.
For disposal of this writ petition, facts in brief will suffice.
When the writ petition was entertained on 28.6.2010, by a speaking order respondents were called upon to file counter affidavit. No stay was given.
Thereafter on 3.9.2010 Public Service Commission was permitted to be impleaded as party and a counter affidavit was called upon to be filed. Respondent no. 5 who is a Minister in the present Government was also asked to file counter affidavit if he so desires.
Pursuant to the aforesaid, counter affidavits have been filed by the State officials, Public Service Commission and also by the respondent no. 5 and thus in all respect pleadings are complete.
Petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Assistant in U. P. Public Service Commission in the year 1982 after passing the selection process and he worked in the Commission till 1990 without any adverse remark. In the year 1987 in State Civil Services Examination of the U. P. Public Service Commission petitioner was selected as Assistant Registrar and he joined in 1990 and then he was promoted as Deputy Registrar in the year 1991 and was given officiating charge of Registrar and Controller of Examination by the State Government from time to time till his regular promotion to the post of Registrar in the year 2001. Petitioner is a member of Centralised services and was promoted as Registrar after due selection by the Public Service Commission in the year 2001 and was posted in Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.
Services of the petitioner is governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Service Rules, 1975) Disciplinary proceedings against the members of centralised services is governed by Rule 36 of aforesaid Rules and Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1999), about which there is no dispute.
When the petitioner was posted as Registrar in Bundelkhand University, Jhansi in the year 2003, Sri Ramesh Chandra was there as Vice Chancellor. There were certain complaints against the University on the basis of which the State Government constituted an enquiry as provided in Section 8 of the State University Act. In the said enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Region the Vice Chancellor and the petitioner were found to be prima facie responsible. The report of the Commissioner of the Division dated 2.5.2006 was sent before the State Government. In respect to certain charges the Vice Chancellor was found responsible and in respect to certain charges petitioner was prima facie found to be responsible.
The Vice Chancellor was removed from service by order dated 16.7.2005 on the basis of the enquiry report dated 2.6.2005 upon which he filed writ petition before this Court i.e. writ petition no. 51370 of 2005 which was finally allowed on 11.6.2007 and removal order was quashed.
It is on the basis of that very report dated 2.6.2005 submitted by the Commissioner of the Division on the basis of which the Vice Chancellor was removed, the State Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by serving him a charge sheet dated 14.10.2005. Five charges were stated in the charge sheet. In support of all the five charges the only evidence relied was the report dated 2.6.2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi. Presently petitioner was not working in the Bundelkhand University and thus he was not in a position to give effective reply without perusal of the record but he was not provided access to the records. On the basis of his memory petitioner submitted his reply.
The Enquiry Officer did not fix any date, place and time to enable the petitioner to examine the record in the University and to cross examine the persons who made the alleged complaints. Copy of the material or the complaints upon which even the preliminary report was based was never supplied to the petitioner.
After submission of the reply by the petitioner the Enquiry Officer is said to have visited the Bundelkhand University and by getting certain things verified about the charges from certain officials whose details are also not clear in the report, enquiry report was submitted on 15.5.2006 which was given to the petitioner along with show cause notice. Petitioner submitted his objections to the enquiry report by letter dated 18.3.2007/22.6.2008. It is thereafter the concerned Minister intervened and at several stages he got the file summoned and issued necessary directions and approved for major punishment of removal from service and then by getting it concurred from Public Service Commission although the records required by the Public Service Commission were never sent by the State Government, the impugned order of removal from service has been passed.
It is to challenge the aforesaid order of the respondent no. 2 removing the petitioner from service the present writ petition.
One of the main submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from incorrectness in the charges which are not proved from any materials (oral or documentary whatsoever) the entire proceedings and submission of the report is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the decision of the competent authority removing the petitioner from service by awarding the major punishment is clearly vitiated.
It is further submitted that the only evidence in support of the charges which was relied is the report of the Commissioner, Jhansi dated 2.6.2005 which was never proved either by examination of its author or by any other evidence i.e. statement of anyone in presence of the petitioner with an opportunity to cross examine. No document has been collected subject to the knowledge/information and its service on the petitioner and, therefore, the report of the Enquiry Officer in the regular enquiry is just based only on the preliminary report of the Commissioner of the Division dated 2.6.2005. It is further submitted that besides the impugned order being in violation of principles of natural justice, the order is a result of annoyance of the Minister concerned with malafide reasons.
It is then submitted that the Public Service Commission also without application of mind granted approval to the major punishment although papers required to be sent by the State Government were not provided and thus besides various other grounds so taken in the writ petition, on these short grounds itself the impugned order need to be quashed.
In response to the aforesaid, Sri Chaturvedi learned Advocate submits that the petitioner has been given proper opportunity to meet the charges against him and whatever papers he wanted were permitted to be seen but the petitioner did not appear and, therefore, if the Enquiry Officer after making queries from some of the officials, by examination of the record submitted the report, on the basis of which the decision to remove the petitioner from service was taken then no exception can be taken to it.
It is then submitted that although from the record it transpires that the concerned Minister has directed for placement of the file by making various noting etc. and has approved the proposal for major punishment but ultimately it was approved by the Chief Minister and then was approved by the Public Service Commission and, therefore, on the vague allegation of malafide and something wrong on the part of the respondent no. 5 the impugned decision of the State Government cannot be interfered.
It is then submitted that charges against the petitioner are serious and, therefore, if they have been accepted to be proved it has to result in major punishment.
In the last, submission is that if the flaw in the enquiry proceedings is argued/pointed out in relation to lack of proper opportunity or non fixing of date, time and place of the enquiry then the entire proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated. At the most petitioner can submit for start of the proceedings after the stage of submission of the reply/filing of the objection to the charge sheet.
At this stage counsel for the petitioner submits that as there are serious allegations of malafides against the respondent no. 5 and the documents are also in support thereof and record demonstrates passing of the immediate orders from time to time for getting the file, approval of major punishment and taking of the personal interest, it will be in all fairness to give a direction to the State Government to get another Enquiry Officer nominated which may be a competent official of any other department other than the department of the Higher Education so that respondent no. 5 who is still in that capacity may not be in a position to impress upon the things and a fair enquiry in all fairness may take place.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions, we are to decide the merit in the contention of either of the sides.
There is no dispute about the fact that in the charge sheet dated 14/18.10.2005 (annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) served on the petitioner in respect to all the five charges only one documentary evidence is referred which is the report of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division dated 22.6.2005.
The aforesaid report was the basis for passing the order of removal of the Vice Chancellor of that University which was finally set aside by this Court in the final judgment dated 11.6.2007 given in the writ petition no. 51370 of 2005. It was observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment that the conclusions arrived at by the Chancellor had been controversial which could be recorded only after holding the full fledged enquiry giving him the charge sheet and appointing an enquiry officer treating the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer appointed under Section 8(1) of the Act as a preliminary enquiry report. The observation of this Court in the writ petition referred above which is useful for our purpose is quoted here :
"The conclusions arrived at by the Chancellor had been controversial, which could be recorded only after holding a full fledged enquiry giving him the charge sheet and appointing an Inquiry Officer treating the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer appointed under Section 8(1) of the Act as a preliminary enquiry report."
(Emphasis supplied) Thus the enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division dated 2.6.2005 was just a preliminary report and that has to be subjected to approval before the enquiry officer. The report has to be proved by examination of further oral and documentary evidence, under an intimation to the petitioner and an opportunity to meet those evidence. It has been clearly stated in para 22 of the writ petition that the enquiry officer never fixed any date, time and place, informing the petitioner to examine the record in the University or to cross examine those persons who had made the complaint besides non providing of the material on the basis of preliminary enquiry report so submitted.
The averment as contained in para 22 of the writ petition is to be quoted below :
"That the enquiry officer has never fixed any date to enable the petitioner to examine the records in the university or to cross examine those persons who had made the complaints. The petitioner was also not provided the list of material or the copy of material or the copy of the complaints, upon which the preliminary enquiry report was prepared. The only document which was provided to the petitioner is the enquiry report of the Commissioner."
There is no specific denial in the counter affidavit to the specific averment of non fixing of any date and time in the enquiry proceedings. It has been just stated in para 22 of the counter affidavit that the enquiry officer wrote to the Bundelkhand University on 7.11.2005 to make available all the relevant papers to the petitioner. The averments as contained in para 22 is not being quoted as it is quite a lengthy paragraph but in the entire paragraph only averment is in respect to information to the University for providing some papers to the petitioner but there is no averment whatsoever that the enquiry officer fixed any date, place and time for the enquiry and informed the petitioner to be present to participate in the enquiry and at the same time any oral or documentary evidence was collected and referred before the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to meet out those evidence.
We can straightway refer to the enquiry report itself which is dated 15.5.2006 (annexure no. 6 to the writ petition). In the report which is part of the record of this writ petition at page 172 it is clearly mentioned that he went in the University and inspected the record and asked certain questions from some of the officials and interviewed them. The report states about certain queries from certain officials but from the record it is absolutely clear that examination of those persons was never undertaken in presence of petitioner and after an opportunity to him to participate in that enquiry. It also appears that no statement of any witness has been recorded and even if it is so then petitioner has not been provided any opportunity to cross examine them.
There is no dispute about the fact that in the disciplinary proceedings provisions of U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is applicable, wherein Rule 7 (vii) clearly provides the procedure for imposing major penalty.
Rule 7 (vii) of the aforesaid Rules is quoted for convenience :
"Where the charged Government Servant denies the charges the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence."
(Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid Rule clearly provides that where the charged government servant denies the charges the enquiry officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral and documentary evidence in presence of the charged government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross examine such witnesses. After recording the evidence the enquiry officer shall call and record oral evidence which the charged Government Servant has desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence.
No oral evidence in presence of charged government servant has been recorded and thus there is no question of any opportunity to cross examine them.
In respect to providing of opportunity to award major punishment like dismissal, holding of full fledged enquiry must be there.
This Court in the case of Nishith Chandra Tiwari Vs. U. P. Sahkari Gramya Vikash Bank Ltd., Lucknow and others reported in 2003 (2) E.S.C.1170 made the following observation :
"However, when it is proposed to impose a major punishment like dismissal, ordinarily a full fledged oral enquiry must be held. This is because a major punishment has very serious consequences for the employee. It can result in the employee and his whole family been driven to starvation and destitution. Hence, the law imposes a stricter and more elaborate procedure requiring a full fledged oral enquiry in cases of major punishment. In such category of cases, it is ordinarily necessary for the employer to issue a notice to the employee indicating the date, time and place of the enquiry and appointing an Inquiry Officer. On the date and time fixed, the witnesses against the concerned employee must be examined ordinarily in his presence and he must be given an opportunity to cross examine them. Thereafter he must be allowed to adduce his own witnesses and produce the other evidence whether oral documentary. It is only after completing this procedure that a major punishment can be imposed. This is the view which this Court has taken in Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and another, 1999 (4) AWC 3227 against which judgment SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The judgment in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra) has been followed by this Court in several decisions, e.g. Sahngoo Ram Arya V. Chief Secretary, State of U. P., Lucknow and others, 2002 (1) ESC 479 (All) against which SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.3.2003 and Subhash Chandra Sharma V. U. P. Cooperative Spinning Mills and others, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1475 etc."
In another decision given by the Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Javed Khan Vs. State of U. P. and others reported in 2008 (1) ADJ 284 on the ground that in the enquiry petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to participate and no date, time and place was fixed and enquiry proceeding, decision to punish the petitioner was set aside.
Observation as made in the case of Mohd. Javed Khan (Supra) is hereby quoted below :
"5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically argued that the enquiry proceedings were without jurisdiction and that the enquiry report was back dated. The fact, however, is that in this enquiry, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate therein by the enquiry officer, as no date, time and place was ever fixed nor was communicated to him.
6. Sri K. A. Khan appearing for the respondents, after perusing the records stated that after the submission of reply to the charge sheet by the petitioner, no date has been fixed for holding enquiry nor the petitioner was associated with the enquiry. This statement was recorded in our order dated 21.11.2007, which is on the order sheet.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by the enquiry officer while holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted his enquiry report to the appointing authority, who did not look into the said matter and passed the order of dismissal from service, the entire proceedings as well as the order impugned, are liable to be set aside.
8. Under the facts and circumstances aforesaid, that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the enquiry, we do not find it necessary to address ourselves to other questions which have been raised by the petitioner. The order of dismissal from service is liable to be set aside only on the aforesaid ground.
9. We, therefore, quash the impugned order dated 20.2.2006. The petitioner shall be reinstated in to service forthwith and shall be paid his salary accordingly. He shall, however, not be paid any salary from the date of passing of the dismissal order till the date of this judgment, the payment of which amount shall abide the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry."
In another decision given by this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Spg. Mills Federation Ltd. reported in 1999 (4) AWC 3227 it was held that if no evidence was led in presence of petitioner and if he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, order of dismissal is to be quashed.
Observation as made by this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Sharma (Supra) is hereby quoted below :
"5. In our opinion, after the petitioner replied to the charge sheet a date should have been fixed for the enquiry and the petitioner should have been intimated the date, time and place of the enquiry and on that date the oral and documentary evidence against the petitioner should have been led in his presence and he should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him and also he should have been given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and evidence. If the petitioner in response to this intimation had failed to appear for the enquiry, then an ex parte enquiry should have been held but the petitioner's service should have not been terminated without holding an enquiry. In the present case, it appears that no regular enquiry was held at all. All that was done that after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet, he was given a show cause notice and thereafter the dismissal order was passed. In our opinion, this was not the correct legal procedure and there was violation of the rules of natural justice. Since no date for enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry held in which evidence was led in our opinion, the impugned order is clearly violative of natural justice.
6. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719, the Supreme Court observed : "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and his requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted."
7. In S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 212, the Supreme Court set aside a dismissal order which was passed without giving the employee an opportunity of cross examination. In State of U. P. V. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158, the Supreme Court held that emission to give opportunity to the Officer to produce his witnesses and lead evidence in his defence vitiates the proceedings. The Court also held that in the enquiry witnesses have to be examined in support of the allegations and opportunity has to be given to the delinquent to cross-examine these witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. In Punjab National Bank V. AIPNBE Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 (vide para 66), the Supreme Court held that in such enquiries evidence must be recorded in the presence of the charge-sheeted employee and he must be given an opportunity to rebut the said evidence. The same view was taken in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963 II LLJ 396, and in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963 II LLJ 78 SC.
8. Even if the employee refuses to participate in the enquiry, the employer cannot straightaway dismiss him, but he must hold an ex parte enquiry where evidence must be led vide Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 1348, Uma Shanker v. Registrar, 1992 (65) FLR 674 All.
9. A dismissal order has serious consequences and should be passed only after complying with the rules of natural justice. Since in the present case, no enquiry was held at all and no evidence led in the presence of the petitioner nor was he given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against him or lead his own evidence the impugned dismissal order is illegal."
At this stage some more observation in the old cases relating to the rule of hearing and opportunity as has been quoted in the recent judgment of the Apex Court dated 15.4.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 3261 of 2011 will be useful to be quoted here :
"In the celebrated case of Cooper V. Wandsorth Board of Works (1863) 143 ER 414, the principle was stated thus :
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence, "Adam" says God, "where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat."
"Perhaps the best known statement on the right to be heard has come from Lord Loreburn, L. C. in Board of Education V. Rice (1911 AC 179 at 182), where he observed :
"Comparatively recent statues have extended, if they have originated, the practice of imposing upon departments or offices of State the duty of deciding or determining questions of various kinds.....In such cases...... they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything. But I do not think they are bound to treat such questions as though it were a trial......they can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial in their view."
In Ridge V. Baldwin 1964 AC 40 Lord Reid emphasized on the universality of the right to a fair hearing whether it concerns the property or tenure of an office or membership of an institution. In O'Reilly v. Macman 1983 2 AC 237, Lord Diplock said that the right of a man to be given a fair opportunity of hearing, what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case is so fundamental to any civilized legal system that it is to be presumed that Parliament intended that failure to observe the same should render null and void any decision reached in breach of this requirement. In Lloyd V. Mcmahon 1987 AC 625 Lord Bridge said :
"My Lords, the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone. To use the phrase which better expresses the underlying concept, what the requirements of fairness demand when any body, domestic, administrative or judicial, has to make a decision which will affect the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. In particular, it is well established that when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the courts will not only require the procedure prescribed by the statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural safeguards as will ensure the attainment of fairness."
Petitioner has been further able to demonstrate that the Public Service Commission called upon the State Government to provide various papers in relation to the enquiry proceedings and affording of an opportunity to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.12.2009. Copy of the letter sent by the Commission to the State Government has been annexed as annexure no. 12 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid letter apart from other documents, evidence relating to opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the papers/documents relating to the enquiry proceeding were specifically asked.
Petitioner has annexed before this court copy of the information given by the Commission dated 21.5.2010 from which it is clear that information/details asked from the State Government was not received and at the same time, it is mentioned that only on the basis of the material so received by the Commission at initial stage, proceedings were concluded. Information so provided dated 21.5.2010 has also been annexed as annexure no. 14 to the writ petition. Thus it is a clear case of total non application of mind by Public Service Commission as required papers which were relevant were not available before it.
Apart from the aforesaid petitioner has made specific averments in paragraph no. 30 to 45 of the writ petition suggesting keen interest taken by respondent no. 5 in the mater and specific allegation are supported by various documents also.
Although the respondent no. 5 has denied those allegations by filing counter affidavit but passing of the orders from time to time, and taking keen interest, although in itself may not be a ground to accept the malafides but on the facts and circumstances of the case taking of extra interest in the issue supported by various papers and indication of taking personal interest by respondent no. 5 can be inferred in the light of material on record.
The preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 2.6.2005 as observed by this Court in the writ petition referred above and otherwise also can be said to be subject to the full fledged enquiry. That was held to be just a preliminary report.
Accordingly preliminary enquiry report, without its proof in any manner before the Enquiry Officer, only in the light of the interview of some of the officials and in the light of examination of service record on visit to the University without any information and opportunity to the petitioner cannot be held to be sufficient and a kind of enquiry which can be pressed for the purpose of imposing major punishment of removal of petitioner from service.
It is also apparent that the Public Service Commission also asked for relevant papers and other record of the enquiry proceedings specially documents regarding providing of the opportunity to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings but thus having not been sent to the Public Service Commission, an error has s been committed in according approval to the major punishment.
As this Court on examination of various facts and details and in the light of the admitted facts about lack of opportunity has formed opinion that no regular enquiry in the manner as provided in law has taken place and the enquiry report is not based on any material/evidence so collected in the enquiry proceedings, it may not be proper for this Court to go into the merits of the charges as that may again amount of ex-parte decision either way and that too without there being any evidence so available.
On these facts it will be safe for this Court to leave the merits in the charges to be examined in the regular enquiry proceedings by the Enquiry Officer so provided in law.
At this stage we are to observe that if there are serious allegations against the Minister concerned, holding the enquiry by an officer under whose administrative control, he is may be a matter of note and caution. In all fairness another enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry is to be appointed by the Chief Secretary and that is not to be routed through the concerned Minister but rather that may be routed through the Chief Minister.
Here is a case where respondent no. 5 has been impleaded by name. Some orders were passed by him in haste and at the same time various documents and specific allegations has been made. Irrespective of obvious denial from the side of the respondent no. 5 we are to just go by peculiar facts and circumstances of present case.
In this respect we are to note an observation made by this Court as made in the case of Sahngoo Ram Arya Vs. The Chief Secretary reported in 2002 (1) ESC 479 :
"So far as the enquiry against the petitioner was concerned it was directed that it should proceed and it should be taken to its logical conclusion. However, it is directed that "the Enquiry Officer be not under the administrative control of the minister concerned and secondly that the enquiry be conducted by such officer to be appointed by the Chief Secretary and shall not be routed through the concerned Minister but the same shall be routed through the Chief Minister."
For the reasons given above, we are of the considered view that impugned decision of removal of the petitioner from service is without any opportunity to participate him in regular enquiry and, therefore, that has to be quashed but at the same time as the impugned order is being set aside on the technical ground i.e. the flaw in the enquiry proceedings, fresh enquiry has to proceed after the stage of submission of the reply/filing of the objection of the petitioner to the charge sheet, in accordance with law.
In addition to the aforesaid, it is observed that now another enquiry officer has to be appointed who is not to be under the administrative control of respondent no. 5. He may be a competent authority of any other department who may be appointed by the Chief Secretary.
For the reasons given above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 removing the petitioner from service is hereby quashed.
It is open for the respondent to proceed with the fresh enquiry, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations, as made above.
19.4.2011.
Sachdeva.