High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramji Mallah v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 2238 of 2004  RD-AH 129 (9 March 2004)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2238 OF 2004
State of U.P. and others.......................................Respondents
Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard Sri R.N.Tripathi assisted by Ms. Ekta Kaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh for the respondents.
The petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee. On the basis of an incident dated 12.6.2000, a charge sheet dated 25.9.2000 was issued. The petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 14.10.2000. It transpires that the reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory and the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dated 30.4.2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by an order dated 25.11.2003. Consequently the present writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order dated 30.4.2001 and 25.11.2003 and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted for terminating the services of the petitioner was violative of Regulations 85 and 87 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet was found unsatisfactory, it was imperative upon the disciplinary authority to constitute an inquiry and appoint an Inquiry Officer who would then conduct an oral inquiry and submit his report. In the present case, no such inquiry was initiated and the impugned order was passed on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The respondents have not denied this fact and has only stated that since the petitioner did not pray for the cross-examination of the witnesses, therefore, no inquiry was conducted and the order was passed on the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner.
In my view, the procedure adopted by the respondent was not in consonance with the procedure laid down under Regulation 85 of the Regulations of 1975. Once the delinquent denies the charges, it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to appoint an Inquiry Officer and conduct an inquiry and prove the charges against the delinquent. It is only thereafter an order of penalty could be passed. In the present case this procedure has not been adopted and therefore, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure contemplated under Regulation 85.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the order of dismissal cannot be passed unless prior occurrence from the Board is taken as contemplated in Regulation 87 of the Act. This averment has been alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 29 of the writ petition which has not been controverted by the respondents in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 30.4.2001 and 25.11.2003 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages. It is however, open to the respondents to pass a fresh order of penalty after completing the procedure as contemplated under Regulations 85 and 87 of the Regulations of 1975.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.