Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6566 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ravindra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 23.03.2023 issued by the respondent no. 4/3 i.e. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to forthwith sanction and disburse the arrears of salary from 21 June 2018 till date within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court and further continue to pay his regular monthly salary regularly every month, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and hard injury."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already been suspended vide order dated 10.07.2018 which culminated into chargesheet dated 23.03.2023 issued by the respondent no. 3, being the disciplinary authority.
4. Challenge to the chargesheet dated 23.03.2023 has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the opportunity afforded to the petitioner for submitting his bonafide in shape of submission of relevant documents before the disciplinary authority, itself, being the Inquiry Officer which is not permitted as per the statutory provisions contained in the Service Rules pertaining to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition on the ground that the matter pertains to the procurement of forged and fictitious certificate on which the appointment has been sought by the petitioner which is highly illegal and as such, after conducting the proper disciplinary proceedings the warranted action may be taken against the petitioner.
6. By bare perusal of the order dated 23.03.2023 which is in shape of chargesheet, it is crystal clear that the same has been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Mathura being the disciplinary authority and the date which has been fixed i.e. 28.03.2023 for calling the petitioner and providing the opportunity of submission along with evidences before the disciplinary authority, itself, being the Inquiry Officer which is contrary to the provisions as mentioned in the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal), Rules 1999.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised his arguments by way of relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. And Others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha decided on 02.02.2010 (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein it has been held that an inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the Department/Disciplinary Authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent officials to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved.
8. By bare perusal of the order which impugned the present petition dated 23.03.2023 seems to be contrary to the verdict as pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra).
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 23.03.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside only to the extent of providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the disciplinary authority itself.
10. Moreover, the responding authorities are at liberty to appoint the proper Inquiry Officer if not already appointed and finalize the disciplinary proceedings whatsoever has been initiated against the petitioner within a specified period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 3.
11. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforementioned directions
Order Date :- 28.4.2023/SY
