Allahabad High Court
Babu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 November, 2011
Bench: Sunil Hali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36004 of 2006
Petitioner :- Babu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Petitioner's fair price shop licence has been cancelled by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 1.7.2005. Allegations levelled against the petitioner are as under:
"1. That at the time of inspection, fair price ship dealer was absent.
2. That he was involved in irregular distribution of essential commodities.
3. That he illegally kept the ration cards of the card holders.
4. That he misbehaved with the card-holders.
5. That he is short tempered person.
6. That he is also involved in irregular distribution of essential commodities to the Antodya ration card holders etc."
The order impugned reveals that a preliminary enquiry was got conducted on the basis of which the charge sheet was prepared. During the course of the enquiry, witnesses have been examined. This process of collection of evidence has been done in absence of the petitioner. On collection of the material, the charge sheet has been served on the petitioner. All the charges have been denied by the petitioner. After having denied the charges, the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected without indicating the reasons as also the material on the basis of which they have been rejected. The fundamental rules of natural justice is that a person has to be given a right to be heard which includes the process by which petitioner is able to disprove the allegations levelled against him. This condition does not get satisfied merely by calling for an explanation from the petitioner and rejecting the same without any reasons. If reliance has been placed on the statement of witness in rejecting the plea of the petitioner, then petitioner has a right to disprove the same from the record.
Perusal of the order clearly reveals that enquiry has been conducted in absence of the petitioner. For all what has been alleged against him, was required to be put to him and to submit his explanation in this behalf. He was not given any opportunity to question the statements recorded in his absence and also to contest the plea that there has been improper distribution of the essential commodities.
I find that no appropriate opportunity has been given to the petitioner in this behalf. While conducting a domestic enquiry following things are required to be done which are as under:
a) nature of charges sought to be proved against the person must be disclosed;
b) he must be given opportunity of contesting allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet;
c) if the charges are not accompanied by supportive evidence then the same may be proved by leading evidence in this behalf;
d) where the charge sheet is accompanied by supportive evidence then explanation be sought from the person to rebut the said evidence and;
e) where the supportive evidence is based on record no witnesses are required to be examined in this behalf.
These principles would apply in all such domestic enquiry. n view of the above, I allow this writ petition and set aside the order 22.5.2006 passed by respondent No.2, Commissioner, Moradabad Division Moradabad and order dated 1.7.2005 and 2.6.2005 passed by respondent No.3 Up Ziladhikari Amroha, District J.P. Nagar and direct that a fresh enquiry be conducted against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. On conclusion of the enquiry, if the allegations levelled against the petitioner are found without merit, then the fair price shop licence of the petitioner shall be restored.
Order Date :- 8.11.2011
NS
