Karuneshwar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7771 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18322 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Karuneshwar Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.D. Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Varma,Y.S. Sachan
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.02.2014 wherein he has been granted certain punishments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire enquiry is defective as no witnesses were produced in the enquiry and petitioner has specifically denied the charges.

The allegations against the petitioner are of misconduct and using abusive language etc.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that earlier punishment order was passed against the petitioner which was quashed by this Court by judgment and order dated 31.05.2012 passed in Writ - A No.23119 of 1999 on the ground that enquiry was not conducted properly by producing witnesses.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the enquiry is completed on the basis of reply submitted by the petitioner.

Perusal of enquiry report shows that entire enquiry report is prepared on the basis of charge sheet and reply submitted by the petitioner, no witnesses were produced on part of the department. Said averment is specifically made in paragraph no.27 of writ petition. Reply to the same is made in paragraph no.13 of counter affidavit, in which it is not disputed that no witnesses were produced in the enquiry.

It was incumbent upon the department to first prove the charges. More so with regard to the misconduct and abusive language etc. which could only be proved by the persons who were present on the spot. None of those persons were produced in the enquiry. The charges were denied by the petitioner in his reply. Therefore, the enquiry being in violation of principle of natural justice and also in violation of rules cannot stand thus the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 also cannot stand and is set aside.

Since, opportunity was twice given to the department to conduct enquiry, but both times it failed to adopt the correct procedure for conducting the enquiry and producing witnesses and petitioner was also not given any opportunity to file reply, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to make fresh inquiry in the matter.

In view of the above, punishment order dated 17.02.2014 is quashed.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

Atul

[Vivek Chaudhary, J.]