Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Chaudhary vs U.P. Pollution Control Board ... on 11 March, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4608 of 2019
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary
Respondent :- U.P. Pollution Control Board Lucknow Thru Member Secy.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.4.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.1.2019 so far as it relates to posting of the petitioner to the Headquarter due to proceedings/ enquiry pending against the petitioner pursuant to the complaint of one Sri T.R. Mishra. The petitioner has also assailed the charge sheet dated 13.12.2018, which was served upon the petitioner on 21.1.2019.
Normally, the Court does not interfere with the charge sheet. In the instant case, the suspension order against the petitioner has already been revoked and the departmental enquiry is still pending against the petitioner. In the aforesaid enquiry, the charge sheet dated 13.12.2018 has been issued against the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules,1999") categorically provides the manner under which the charge sheet should be issued against the employee. Sub Clause (iii) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 reads as under:-
"7. (iii) The charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. The proposed documentary evidence and the name of the witnesses proposed to prove the same along with the oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the charge-sheet."
A bare perusal of Sub Clause (iii) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 categorically provides that charges framed shall be so precise and clear as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him.
I have perused the charge sheet dated 13.12.2018. Perusal thereof indicates that the charge sheet so issued against the petitioner is not in conformity with Sub Clause (iii) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999.
It has also been noted that in the charge sheet dated 13.12.2018 a reference of one complaint of Sri T.R. Mishra has been given and the said complaint has been made as one of the relied upon documents. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid complaint has not been made against the petitioner on affidavit, which is in violation of Government Order dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure No.11 to the writ petition), which categorically mandates that if any complaint is made against any Government officer, the same must contain an affidavit supporting the said complaint. Since no affidavit has been filed along with the complaint of Sri T.R. Mishra, who has made complaint against the petitioner, therefore, the said complaint may not be treated as complaint in the eyes of law.
Be that as it may, it is settled proposition of law that normally, the Courts do not interfere with the enquiry proceedings and do not interfere with the charge sheet, but if the charge sheet itself has been issued in derogation of statutory provision i.e. Rule 7 (iii) of the Rules, 1999, the Courts may direct the disciplinary authority/ enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the employee, but in conformity with the statutory provision. Further, the cognizance of any complaint, which has not been filed on affidavit, would be nullity in the eyes of law.
Therefore, in view of the above, since the charge sheet has not properly been issued against the petitioner following the statutory provision, as aforesaid and in the aforesaid charge sheet cognizance of a complaint has also been taken, which has been filed without any affidavit, therefore, the said charge sheet dated 13.12.2018 is hereby quashed.
In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Consequences to follow.
However, it is open to the disciplinary authority to issue direction for departmental enquiry against the petitioner, if it is so warranted and if the enquiry is initiated against the petitioner, the same may be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law, but with expedition. Before initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in the issue in question, the disciplinary authority must have his subjective satisfaction as to whether the enquiry against the petitioner is actually warranted or not.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.3.2019
RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
