Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 7 April, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2559 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Chaudhary
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Energy And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Saxena,Rajat Rajan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Saran,Neerav Chitravanshi
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 10.9.2021 passed by respondent No.3- Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Lucknow.
3. The main ground for assailing the said order is that previously also punishment order was passed against the petitioner which was assailed by him before this Court in writ petition No.6411 (S/S) of 2020 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.7.2021 holding that in case regular inquiry has not been conducted by the investigating officer then the inquiry report as well as the punishment order would be nullity in the eyes of law, as no date, time and place has been fixed for the regular inquiry the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited was set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that presently even after the judgment and order of this Court the respondents have proceeded to try the petitioner and the punishment made on the basis of the inquiry report dated 16.8.2019 which has already been set aside. To canvass this submission he has taken us to the said order where the inquiry report dated 16.8.2019 has been extensively dealt with in the punishment order. He has further submitted that merely a notice was given to him to appear before the inquiry committee but there is no report either on record or submitted to the petitioner before passing the order.
5. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for respondents has informed this Court that pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2021, the Inquiry Committee has given a fresh opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing on 06.08.2021.
6. After hearing the petitioner in person, afresh report was prepared where it seems no fresh facts came on record and consequently the inquiry report was prepared considering the previous inquiry report as well as fresh inputs prepared after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The grant of personal hearing to the petitioner alone does not cure the infirmities if the previous inquiry which have been duly recorded by this Court in its order dated 12.07.2021.
7. Once this Court has recorded that inquiry was conducted without giving opportunity to the petitioner and no date, time and place was fixed for conduct of the inquiry, the respondents were required to conduct the inquiry from that stage onward. The setting aside of the previous inquiry necessarily held that the inquiry report submitted on 16.08.2019 would also stands nullified and this Court has in specific words held that inquiry report dated 16.08.2019 is also nullity in the eyes of law.
8. Despite specific directions of this Court, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass orders considering the inquiry report dated 16.08.2019 which is evident from the order of punishment impugned in the present writ petition. Surprisingly, even clear directions of this court have been flouted by the respondents in conduct of the fresh inquiry.
9. Needless to say there are various government orders and rules where detail guidelines have been framed for conduct of the disciplinary inquiry. Despite clear direction, the inquires have been conducted in matters of major penalty is sought to be imposed flouting all directions and despite this Court pointing out infirmities in such inquiry the same errors are repeated in subsequent inquires. This Court has also taken into account aforesaid facts while in the case of Aklavya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 26819 of 2019 where they have observed that erring inquiry officers as well as disciplinary authorities should also be proceeded against for conducting inquiry is in gross violation of the guidelines and rules framed therein. Once this Court had clearly stated and set aside the previous inquiries it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to be careful and conduct the inquiry strictly in accordance with law.
10. Despite the aforesaid, the inquiry was conducted taking into account the inquiry report which has been set aside by this Court as such brazen act cannot go unnoticed. The law on this point is also clear that once this Court has set aside the inquiry proceedings for being violation of principle of natural justice, the Inquiry Officer is at liberty to proceed afresh on the stage where infirmity is noticed. No doubt, this Court was limited the matter to the inquiry officer to a fresh considering that the previous inquiry officer has flouted all the provisions of conduct the inquiry in accordance with rules.
11. Let a fresh inquiry officer be appointed to conduct the inquiry. The respondent No. 3 shall ensure that the persons entrusted with conduct of the inquiry is well versed in the rules and regulations in regard to conducting any inquiry.
12. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 10.09.2021 and the consequential appellate order 27.01.2023 are set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The proceedings shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 7.4.2023
Ravi/
