# Akhtar Ali v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 819
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-25
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 575 (SB) of 2002
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, S.V.S.Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhtar-ali-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42167
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2 All] Akhtar Ali V. State of U.P. and others
819
16.01.2007, hence, the term of the said
Nagar Panchayat as also that of the
petitioner being its Chairperson would
come to an end on 15.01.2012.

29. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.,
THE HON'BLE S.V.S.RATHORE, J.

Writ Petition No. 575 (SB) of 2002

Akhtar Ali

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Dismissal
order-passed
on
basis
of
enquiry report-form of question-answer
of
examination-in-chief
and
cross
examinations
without
supply
of
documents-held in utter disregard of
procedure as well as principle of Natural
Justice-dismissal order as well as order
of Appellate authority-not sustainablequashed with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 12

Taking the holistic view of the matter,
we have no hesitation in saying that the
inquiry has been conducted in utter
disregard to the principles of natural
justice. Since the impugned order has
been passed on the basis of the inquiry
report, which suffers from procedural
illegality and violative of principles of
natural justice, the order of punishment
vitiates. The Appellate Authority has also
not dealt with the pleas raised by the
petitioner but rejected the appeal in a
cursory manner. The Appellate Authority
ought to have applied its independent
mind and should have recorded reasons
for
rejecting
the
pleas/submissions
raised by the petitioner in his appeal.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2010 SC 3131; Writ Petition No. 8876 (SB)
of 1987; (1986) 3 SCC 229; [2003] (21) LCD
610; JT 2008 (9) SC 205

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
parties.

2. Petitioner was initially appointed on
the post of Cashier/Clerk in the Aryavrat
Grameen Bank in the year 1981. Later on,
due to his good conduct and work
performance, he was promoted as an
Officer in the Bank. While the petitioner
was posted as an Officer in Kursi Branch of
the Bank, he was placed under suspension
vide order dated 12.2.2000 for certain
irregularities. On the basis of the enquiry
report,
the
petitioner
was
awarded
punishment of dismissal from service vide
order dated 3.8.2001. The validity of the
said punishment order was questioned by
the petitioner in appeal but the same was
also rejected vide order dated 13.2.2002.
Hence the petitioner has filed the instant
writ petition, assailing the aforesaid two
orders.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently contended that the order,
impugned in the petition, imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service is
nullity having been passed in utter disregard
of the principles of natural justice inasmuch
as the petitioner has not been furnished with
a copy of audit compliance report, copy of
the covering schedule credit note 2400 and
the copy of the stationary delivery register
from Head Office of Credit No. 2400
through the said credit note no. 2400 though
the said credit note 2400 is the basis of
charge. He also clarified that even the
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner was not allowed to inspect the
aforesaid documents though all the said
documents were cited in the charge-sheet as
evidence and were utilized against him.
Thus, non-furnishing of documents, which
were relied upon in the charge-sheet, the
petitioner has been materially prejudiced.

4. As regard the defect in the
disciplinary proceedings, learned Counsel
for the petitioner vehemently asserted that
instead of recording examination-in-chief of
witnesses and leaving the cross examination
to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer himself
concluded the examination in chief of
witnesses and cross examination in question
and answer form and, therefore, the entire
proceedings are vitiated. To substantiate the
aforesaid arguments, reliance has been
placed upon State of U.P. and others v.
Saroj Kumar Sinha; AIR 2010 SC 3131
and Division Bench's decision of this Court
in Vidya Prasad Rao vs. State of U.P. and
others; rendered in writ petition no. 8876
(SB) of 1987; Vidya Prasad Rao vs. State of
U.P. and others decided on 16.3.2010.

5. Lastly, learned Counsel for the
petitioner contended that the points raised
by the petitioner in his reply to the chargesheet and in reply to the show cause notice
were
not
considered
in
its
correct
prospective by the Disciplinary Authority.
The Disciplinary Authority also has not
dealt with the points raised by the petitioner
but summarily rejected the appeal without
assigning any reasons.

6. On the other hand, in the counter
affidavit filed by the Bank it has been
indicated that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned orders. Whatever
pleas have been raised by the petitioner,
same were considered by the Appellate
Authority but were not found tenable. As
regard the disciplinary proceeding, it has
been indicated that after giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing the order of
punishment was passed.

7. Before dealing with the merits of
the instant case, it would be useful to refer
few decisions of the Apex Court rendered
with regard to procedure to be adopted
during
disciplinary
proceedings.
In
Kashinath Dikshita versus Union of India
and others; (1986)3 SCC 229 the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
emphasized
that
the
delinquent employee facing a departmental
enquiry cannot effectively meet the charges
unless the copies of the relevant statements
and documents to be used against him are
made available to him. In the absence of
such copies the concerned employee cannot
prepare his defence, cross examine the
witnesses and point out the inconsistencies
with a view to show that the allegations are
incredible. Observance of natural justice
and due opportunity has been held to be an
essential
ingredient
in
disciplinary
proceedings.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in
Radhey Kant Khare vs. U.P. Cooperative
Sugar Factories Federation ltd. [2003](21)
LCD 610 held that after a charge-sheet is
given to the employee an oral enquiry is a
must, whether the employee requests for it
or not. Hence a notice should be issued to
him indicating him the date, time and place
of the enquiry. On that date so fixed the oral
and documentary evidence against the
delinquent employee should first be led in
his presence. Thereafter the employer must
adduce his evidence first. The reason for
this principle is that the charge-sheeted
employee should not only know the charges
against him but should also know the
evidence against him so that he can properly
reply to the same. The person who is
2 All] Akhtar Ali V. State of U.P. and others
821
required to answer the charge must be given
a fair chance to hear the evidence in support
of the charge and to put such relevant
questions by way of cross-examination, as
he desires. Then he must be given a chance
to rebut the evidence led against him.

9. In State of Uttaranchal & ors. V.
Kharak Singh, JT 2008(9) SC 205, the
Apex Court has enumerated some of the
basic principles to be observed while
conducting the departmental inquiries and
consequences in the event, if these basic
principles are not adhered to, the order is to
be quashed. The principles enunciated are
reproduced herein:

(a) The inquiries must be conducted
bona fide and care must be taken to see that
the inquiries do not become empty
formalities.

(b) If an officer is a witness to any of
the incident which is the subject matter of
the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on
the report of an officer, then in all fairness
he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the
said position becomes known after the
appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during
the enquiry, steps should be taken to see
that the task of holding an enquiry is
assigned to some other officer.

(C)
In
an
enquiry,
the
employer/department should take steps first
to
lead
evidence
against
the
workman/delinquent
charged,
give
an
opportunity to him to cross-examine the
witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter,
the workman/delinquent be asked whether
he wants to lead any evidence and asked to
give any explanation about the evidence led
against him. [emphasis supplied]

10. In Saroj Kumar's case (supra) the
Apex Court reiterated that departmental
enquiry conducted against the Government
servant cannot be treated as a casual
exercise. The enquiry proceedings also
cannot be conducted with a closed mind.
The enquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The Supreme Court further
observed that the object of rules of natural
justice is to ensure that a government
servant is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal
from service. At this juncture it is relevant
to point out that some of the documents
which were demanded by the petitioner
were not supplied to him on the ground that
they were having no relevancy with the
charges levelled against him. On the other
hand, credit note no. 2400 of covering
schedule is the basis of charge and the facts
in this regard were utilized by the Enquiry
Officer against the petitioner. The law is
well settled that if a document has been
utilized against a delinquent employee
without furnishing the copy of the same to
him, it would vitiate the entire disciplinary
proceedings. Moreover, such lapse would
vitiate the departmental proceedings unless
it was shown and established as a fact that
non-supply of copies of those documents
had not caused any prejudice to the
delinquent in his defence.

11. In the instant case, the main thrust
of submission of learned Counsel for the
petitioner is that the procedure adopted
during the course of inquiry is totally
defective and it is a drastic deviation from
the established procedure generally adopted
in departmental inquiries. A glance on the
enquiry report indicates that the Inquiry
Officer has concluded the examination in
chief and cross examination of witnesses in
question and answer form. We find force in
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. The Enquiry
Officer instead of recording examination in
chief of witnesses and leaving the crossexamination
to
the
delinquent
employee/petitioner, himself completed the
examination of witnesses in questionanswer form. Thus, the petitioner could not
get opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Thus, the assertion of the petitioner that
disciplinary proceedings suffer from legal
infirmities, can easily be accepted.

12. Taking the holistic view of the
matter, we have no hesitation in saying that
the inquiry has been conducted in utter
disregard to the principles of natural justice.
Since the impugned order has been passed
on the basis of the inquiry report, which
suffers from procedural illegality and
violative of principles of natural justice, the
order of punishment vitiates. The Appellate
Authority has also not dealt with the pleas
raised by the petitioner but rejected the
appeal in a cursory manner. The Appellate
Authority ought to have applied its
independent mind and should have recorded
reasons for rejecting the pleas/submissions
raised by the petitioner in his appeal.

13. In the result, the impugned order
of dismissal dated 3.8.2001 and the
appellate order dated 13.2.2002 passed by
the respondents nos. 3 and 2 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in service forthwith and will be entitled for
all consequential benefits. In the event, if
the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation, he shall be entitled for all
post-retiral benefits treating him to be in
service till the date of attaining the age of
superannuation and all admissible dues shall
be paid to him in a maximum period of four
months. As the punishment order was
passed way back in 2001 and since the
petitioner has undergone a series of
harassments on account of the departmental
inquiry, we are not inclined to give any
liberty to the department for initiating fresh
inquiry as it would amount to further
harassment of the petitioner, who either
would
have
attained
the
age
of
superannuation or would be at the fag end
of his service.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHENDRA DAYAL, J.

Special Appeal No. - 1089 of 2009

Prahlad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Suraj Pal & Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Abbasi
Sri Hemant Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri V.P.S. Kashyap

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII rule 5Special Appeal arises out from order
passed
by
Single
Judge-quashing
cancellation of Fair Price Shop and the
appellate order-held-Special Appeal not
maintainable.

Held: Para 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is
evident that the Full Bench Decision in
Sheet Gupta case (supra) is applicable to
the present Special Appeal, and the
present
Special
Appeal
is
not
maintainable.