Ram Kishan Yadav vs Uoi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 5291 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision : 18th December, 2009

+                       W.P.(C) No. 7140/2009


        RAM KISHAN YADAV                                ..... Petitioner
                     Through:          Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Deepak
                                       Aggarwal and Mr. Dhananjay
                                       Jain, Advocates.
                     versus

        UOI & ORS.                                    .... Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate with
                                       Ms. Akriti Gangotra,
                                       Advocate.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                         No
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Rule. D.B.

2. Heard for disposal.

3. Original record of the respondent has been perused.

4. The services of the petitioner were terminated when an

order of dismissal from service was passed. The order was

passed after an ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the

petitioner.

5. After the order of dismissal from service was passed by

the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal

which was dismissed. Statutory remedy of revision was

availed by the petitioner. Even the revision petition has been

dismissed.

6. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the

Disciplinary Authority on 13.6.1998; the order passed by the

Appellate Authority on 16.8.1999; and the order passed by the

Revisional Authority on 02.04.2008.

7. Apart from other grounds urged by the petitioner before

the statutory authorities, he took a stand that the charge-

sheet, which has resulted in the penalty order being passed,

was never served upon him. Said plea has been reaggitated in

the writ petition.

8. With respect to the said plea of the petitioner, the

authorities concerned have simply noted that the charge-sheet

was sent by post at the address given by the petitioner.

9. From the record produced by the respondents in Court

today, it is apparent that the petitioner had given two

addresses. The first was his permanent address being his

ancestral house in Village Zahidpur, P.O. Bhurthal, Tehsil Kosli,

District Rewari, Haryana and the other being the temporary

address at 124, J-Block Locoshed, Kishanganj, Delhi.

10. The later was the government accommodation allotted to

the father-in-law of the petitioner.

11. The record produced by the respondent further shows

that the charge-sheet was sent under registered A.D. post at

the address 124, J-Block Locoshed, Kishanganj, Delhi and was

received back unserved.

12. If that was so, it was expected of the respondent and in

particular the Disciplinary Authority, to serve the petitioner by

sending the charge-sheet at his permanent address.

13. Ignoring that the charge-sheet sent under registered A.D.

post at the temporary address had been received back

unserved, the enquiry was conducted. We note that even the

Enquiry Officer sent the notice for appearance at the

aforenoted address 124, J-Block Locoshed, Kishanganj, Delhi.

The same was also received back unserved.

14. What has pained us is the fact that when the petitioner

filed an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority, he raised the plea that he was never served with the

charge memo, for the reason the same was sent at the

temporary address given by him when he joined service. At

that point of time his father-in-law was in occupation of the flat

at 124, J-Block Locoshed, Kishanganj, Delhi. He informed that

after his father-in-law retired from service possession of the

flat was handed over to the employer. With reference to the

said grounds specifically urged in the appeal, the Appellate

Authority i.e. the Deputy I.G. Police, CRPF sent a query dated

22.6.1999 to the unit concerned enquiring whether the charge

memo as also the notice of appearance sent by the Enquiry

Officer was or was not served upon the petitioner.

15. On 14.7.1999 vide letter No. P.VIII-5/97-EC-II, the

Appellate Authority was informed with reference to its letter

dated 22.6.1999 that the postal envelope under which the

charge-sheet and the notice of appearance respectively issued

by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Authority were

received back undelivered from the postal authorities.

16. Yet inspite of the said information being available to him,

the Appellate Authority ignored the plea of the petitioner and

by simply narrating that the charge memo was posted at the

temporary address given by the petitioner proceeded to hold

that there was no procedural infirmity committed.

17. It is enough for us to note that where a person has

provided a temporary and a permanent address to the

employer, and the Service Rules require that a charge-sheet

should be served upon the person concerned, if the charge-

sheet sent at the temporary address by registered A.D. post is

received back undelivered, the Authority concerned is obliged

to send the charge-sheet at the permanent address.

18. Principles of Natural Justice have been violated. Since

the Statute requires charge-sheet to be served upon the

delinquent officer; noting the afore-noted facts, we allow the

writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated 13.6.1998,

16.8.1998 as also the order dated 02.04.2008. We set aside

the findings of the Enquiry Officer which we note are ex parte

in nature.

19. Noting that the taint in the action of the respondent is of

not serving the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, we take on

record the fact that in Court today, a photocopy of the charge-

sheet (to be treated as an original) has been handed over to

learned counsel for the petitioner.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in turn has handed

over the same to the petitioner. Let the petitioner respond

within six weeks. We clarify that it would be open to the

Disciplinary Authority to nominate a fresh Enquiry Officer who

would hold an enquiry after notifying a date of appearance to

the petitioner.

21. Lest there be any confusion as to the address of the

petitioner, we note that future correspondence as desired by

the petitioner would be at the following address:-

"Constable Ram Kishan Yadav S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o

Village Zahid Pur, P.O. Burthal, Tehsil Kosli, Disstt. Rewari

(Haryana)."

22. In what manner the period between the date when

service of the petitioner were terminated and till enquiry is

conducted should be treated for purposes of service record,

would be decided by the Competent Authority.

23. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

24. No costs.

25. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

SURESH KAIT, J DECEMBER 18, 2009 mr