Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JEET BAHADUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jeet Bahadur v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 13439 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 193 (5 April 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

The petitioner has, inter alia, sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 15.3.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and ex-parte report dated 15.11.2003 (Annexure 22 to the writ petition) besides a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed against him in pursuance of the aforesaid show cause notice and report.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is posted as an Assistant Record Keeper in the revenue department. He was also given additional charge of Arranger. It is submitted that one Sri Hemendra Pal Singh Yadav, Advocate moved an application on 2.6.1999 for inspection of Khatauni of Fasli 1975-77.  After inspection of the Khatauni by Sri Hemendra Pal Singh Yadav, Advocate on 3.6.1999. One Sri Narsingh Pal Singh Yadav, Advocate, the very next day, i.e., 4.6.1999 moved an application for copy of the Khatauni but the said Khatauni was missing. The petitioner submitted his report regarding this fact on 6.8.2001. A charge sheet dated 23.11.2002 has been issued to the petitioner in pursuance whereof an enquiry has been conducted.

It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application for providing the copies of the documents and evidence against him but neither the copies of the documents were given to him nor any document was shown to him in spite of several applications and representations said to have been made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that a show cause notice dated 15.3.2004 was served upon him enclosing therewith an ex-parte enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana dated 15.3.2004.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the said show cause notice dated 15.3.2004. It appears from the record that the petitioner had not checked the file (Basta) after inspection by Sri Hemendra Pal Singh, Advocate and had not immediately informed about the fact of missing of the Khatauni. He had reported the matter after much delay.  

After receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner demanded the copies of the documents and evidence which were relied upon by the department including the names of the witnesses. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 7 (3) of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 which is as under:-          

^^7- nh?kZ 'kkfLr;ka vf/kjksfir djus ds fy, izfdz;k& fdlh ljdkjh lsod ij dksbZ nh?kZ 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus ds iwoZ fuEufyf[kr jhfr ls tkap dh tk;sxh&

¼,d½ -----------------------

¼nks½ -----------------------

¼rhu½ fojfpr vkjksi brus laf{kIr vkSj Li"V gksaxs ftlls vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod ds fo#) rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds Ik;kZIr min'kZu gks ldsA vkjksi&i= esa izLrkfor nLrkosth lk{;ksa vkSj mls fl) djus ds fy, izLrkfor xokgksa ds uke ekSf[kd lk{;ksa ds lkFk] ;fn dksbZ gks] vkjksi&i= esa mfYyf[kr fd;s tk;saxsA**

A perusal of the charge sheet shows that this rule has been fully complied with and the evidence on the basis of which the department desired to rely upon to prove the charges were mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 7 (3) of the aforesaid Rules have not been complied with by the department has no force.

The counsel then relied upon the decision rendered in Hari Nath Singh Yadav Vs Administrator/Chairman, Provincial Co-operative Federation, Lucknow and others, 2000 All.L.J. 1144, in which a Division Bench of this Court held that non-supply of relevant documents referred to in charge sheet to delinquent despite his repeated requests vitiates enquiry proceedings. The aforesaid decision of this Court was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs Shatrughan Lal & another, 1998 All. L. J. 2159, in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Government servant must be given effective opportunity of hearing and if copies of statements of witnesses examined therein are neither supplied even though asked for nor copies of the documents indicated to be relied upon in charge-sheet were made available to him for inspection in spite of request made by the delinquent employee nor was it indicated to him in writing that he may inspect the record the order setting aside termination is proper.

The case cited by the petitioner is of no help to him at this stage. The petitioner has admittedly come against the show cause notice in this writ petition. He was granted 15 days' time by the authority for filing reply. The time has expired, and he has already moved an application for extension of time before the authority for filing reply to the show cause notice.

The writ petition is premature. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that in case the petitioner files his reply to the show cause notice within one week from today, the Enquiry Officer/authority concerned shall consider and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the reply from the petitioner to the show cause notice.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.  

Dated: 5-4-2004

Rpk/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.