Allahabad High Court
Parveen Ghazi And Ors. vs State Public Service Tribunal ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15698 of 2019
Petitioner :- Parveen Ghazi And Ors.
Respondent :- State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Registrar And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Janendra Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Mr. Janendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Umesh Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019, passed by State Public Services Tribunal, dismissing the Claim Petition No.836 of 2014, which had been filed by Mohd. Aquil Ghazi (since deceased), the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, against the order dated 30.06.2013 reverting him on the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years as also challenging the order dated 29.08.2013, dismissing the appeal filed against the punishment order dated 30.06.2013.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while late Mohd. Aquil Ghazi was working as Sub Inspector of Police and while he was posted as Station House Officer, Ramgarh, District Firozabad in the year 2012, a person had committed self immolation on 03.08.2012 being aggrieved by non registration of his first information report. On 17.04.2013, a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Ghazi and to several other persons, asking them to give their explanation on the charges.
Mohd. Aquil Ghazi submitted his reply on 29.12.2012 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer examined several witnesses and late Mohd. Aquil Ghazi had cross-examined some witnesses and on 22.03.2013, the Circle Officer submitted the enquiry report finding Mohd. Aquil Ghazi guilty of gross negligence and indolence in performance of his duties and it was found that first he did not register the first information report of an incident and when the victim set himself ablaze on his instigation, Mohd. Aquil Ghazi did not make any effort to save the person who was burning in front of him.
On 17.04.2013, a notice was issued to Mohd. Aquil Ghazi to show cause as to why he should not be reverted on the minimum of pay scale for a period of three years, he submitted his reply on 20.05.2013 and after taking into consideration the pleas taken by Mohd. Aquil Ghazi in his reply, the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad passed an order on 30.06.2013 imposing punishment of reversion on minimum of pay scale for a period of three years. The appeal filed by the concerned employee against the punishment order was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra by means of an order dated 29.08.2013.
The aforesaid punishment order and appellate order were challenged by the concerned employee before the Public Services Tribunal on the grounds that; (1) copy of preliminary enquiry report has not been supplied to him; and (2) no date, time and place of the enquiry had been informed to the employee.
Learned Tribunal held that the final enquiry report holding the applicant guilty was not based on the preliminary enquiry report and the Enquiry Officer had recorded statements of witnesses and gave opportunity to Mohd. Aquil Ghazi and other employees to cross-examine the witnesses and he has arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the evidence collected during final enquiry. The final enquiry report was not based on the preliminary enquiry report and, therefore, ground of non-supply of preliminary enquiry report would not vitiate the final enquiry proceedings.
Regarding the contention of no date, time and place of enquiry had been communicated to the concerned employee, the learned Tribunal has held that a perusal of the final enquiry report indicates that Mohd. Aquil Ghazi had cross-examined certain witnesses, who he found appropriate to cross-examine. Several other charged employees were also present during enquiry and they had also cross-examined the witnesses, therefore, it is established that all the charged employees had knowledge of date, time and place of the enquiry and they were present there.
On the aforesaid reasons, learned Tribunal has found that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the Rules and the claim petition was found to be without any force and the same has been dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case.
Before this court also, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the aforesaid two grounds, which had been raised before Public Services Tribunal and which have been found to be without any force. Having examined the records, we find no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal that since the final enquiry report was not based on the preliminary enquiry report and the final enquiry report is based on the evidence collected during final enquiry proceedings. Mere non-supply of preliminary enquiry report would not vitiate the final enquiry proceedings. We also do not find any illegality in the finding that since the employee concerned and other charged persons had cross-examined the witnesses whose cross-examination was deemed appropriate by them, the contention that the date, time and place of enquiry had not been informed to them appears to be baseless.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment passed by learned Tribunal in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
Ram.
