Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Saxena vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20891 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Saxena
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Urban Development Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Saxena Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Kapoor
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice for opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the office of learned CSC. Sri Rishabh Kapoor has put in appearance for opposite parties no.2 to 5.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that opposite parties no.4 and 5 be directed to supply the information and documents demanded/ prayed by the petitioner through application dated 9.2.2019 for submitting reply to the charge sheet dated 19.1.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 22.6.2019 being issued by the Chief Engineer Level-I cum Enquiry Officer whereby the aforesaid request of the petitioner has been rejected. Perusal of the letter dated 22.6.2019 does not reveal as to why the request of the petitioner has been rejected, therefore, it appears that the rejection order dated 22.6.2019 is unreasoned and non-speaking. This is trite law that if any departmental enquiry is conducted against an employee and he/ she is given charge sheet, then the employee may demand the relevant documents besides the relied upon documents and if the authority concerned does not provide the same, a specific reason to that effect should have been indicated in the order for the reason that copy of the demanded document should be provided to the employee so that he/ she could submit his/ her defence reply properly. Getting the relied upon documents and relevant documents is a right of an employee and the same cannot be denied without having cogent reasons to that effect.
Since the letter dated 22.6.2019 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) does not disclose any cogent reason denying to supply the documents so demanded by the petitioner, therefore, the Enquiry Officer is hereby directed to provide the copies of documents as demanded by the petitioner vide representation dated 9.2.2019, with expedition, preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and as soon as those documents are provided to the petitioner, the petitioner shall submit his defence reply with expedition, preferably within a maximum period of one month so that the departmental enquiry could be proceeded further.
It is needless to say that after submission of the defence reply to the charge sheet by the petitioner, the enquiry officer shall conclude the departmental enquiry, strictly in accordance with law, by following the principles of natural justice, with expedition and thereafter, if the final order is required, the disciplinary authority may also pass final order but following the due procedure of law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
