Allahabad High Court
Dr. Nisar Ahmad vs State Of U.P. & Others on 30 November, 2011
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67880 of 2011
Petitioner :- Dr. Nisar Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Nandan,T.P. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
We have heard Shri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Nandan for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
The petitioner retired as Joint Director, Medical Health, Allahabad on 31.7.2006. He was served with a charge sheet vide Office Memorandum dated 12.8.2009 under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, for conducting a departmental enquiry against him for having fraudulently paid wages to the employees in his department, who were never appointed and had joined at Allahabad under the forged transfer orders, when he was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad. By the impugned Office Memorandum dated 16.9.2011 after completing the enquiry and seeking approval of the Governor of the State, an order has been passed to deduct 1/3rd pension of the petitioner, until the loss caused to the Government is recovered.
Shri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate submits that the charge sheet dated 12.8.2009 was given later than four years' period from the date of incident, within which the departmental enquiry could be initiated against the petitioner as a retired Government servant. He further submits that no enquiry whatsoever was held. The petitioner requested for the documents, which the department wanted to rely, in support of charges. Neither any dates were fixed nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The State Government, without supplying the necessary documents, proceeded to conclude the departmental enquiry. The Additional Director submitted a report on 24.10.2009 in which he found the allegations to be proved in a short and cryptic manner on the ground that the petitioner has not given his reply to the allegations made in the charge sheet.
Learned Standing Counsel was required to produce the enquiry report.
We have examined enquiry report dated 24.12.2009 and find that the State Government has completely misdirected itself in holding the departmental enquiry. Firstly the burden of supplying the documents, which was the basis of the charges, was placed upon the petitioner. The petitioner had retired on 31.7.2006. He was asked to go on collecting the documents from various department in support of his defence to prove the negative and on his failure to give reply it was concluded just in two lines without even referring to charges and proof thereof that the charges were proved against him.
From the documents produced by the State Government we are satisfied that the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner suffers from gross violation of procedure and principles of natural justice. The enquiry report as well as the Office Memorandum, by which the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner, thus cannot be sustained.
Having found that the departmental enquiry was held against the principle of natural justice, we proposed to remand the matter.
Shri T.P. Singh then submits that since the charge relates to the period prior to four years of the date of incident, no enquiry can be held against the petitioner.
For this purpose we would require the State to file a counter affidavit.
Learned Standing Counsel is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. He will annex the enquiry report dated 24.12.2009, which is the only report of enquiry available with him. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List on 30.1.2012.
Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 16.9.2011 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2011
RKP
