Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. ... on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 445 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Mishra,Dinesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri H. G. S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogendra Mishra for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 28.7.2021 passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. thereby imposing punishment censure entry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he does not want to press prayer No.2 at this stage. Accordingly, prayer No.2 is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the effect that the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1999 was not followed and specifically the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules of 1999 and no date time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer vitiating the entire inquiry process. He has submitted that charge sheet was given to the petitioner on 7th August, 2020 regarding the fact that the petitioner had not joined at the transferred place of posting in pursuance to the transfer order on 9.12.2019 till 3.9.2020. It was stated by the petitioner that during the said period the petitioner was suffering from serious illness and he he intimated the higher authorities about his illness and enclosed medical prescriptions to demonstrate the same. It has also been stated by him that during the COVID 19 pandemic he was unable to join and consequently after the pandemic subsided he joined at the transferred place of posting. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 6.10.2020. The inquiry officer without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or fixing any date, time or place proceeded to conclude the inquiry submitted inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 10.12.2020. A copy of the said record was forwarded to the petitioner and finally by means of the impugned order dated 28.7.2021 punishment order has been passed. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition specific allegations has been made by the petitioner that he has submitted an application and production of witness for cross examination but the inquiry officer has not fixed date, place and time for oral inquiry and accordingly the entire proceeding is vitiated in law and principles of natural justice.
4. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit though have denied the contents of paragraph 20 of the writ petition but have no-where stated that the inquiry officer has fixed any date, time or place.
5. Learned Standing counsel also could not inform this Court that a perusal of the entire material available in the counter affidavit would indicate that any date, time and place was fixed by the investigating officer during the inquiry proceedings. The law in this regard is clear and the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of Supreme Court:-
1. State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772;
2. Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 21
3. State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 236;
4. Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Limited through its Secretary. Mahaprabandhak and another Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 204 and
5. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570
6. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment and considering the facts of the present case it is clear that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as the provisions contained in U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1991 and no date, time and place was fixed by the inquiry officer.
7. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 28.7.2021 passed by opposite party No.1 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the investigating officer to proceed further with the investigation from the stage when the reply to the charge sheet was received after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to adduce any evidence and fix, date time and place again and give opportunity of personal hearing before concluding the said inquiry. The entire exercise be conducted by the investigating officer, within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced to him. The inquiry officer immediately on expiry of aforesaid period shall submit report to the disciplinary authority who shall further pass final order in the matter, expeditiously say within a period of two weeks thereafter.
8. Needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the aforesaid proceedings.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.
