# Maidan Singh v. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1288
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-14
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 3424 (SB) of 1994
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, S.C. Chaurasia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maidan-singh-v-state-public-services-tribunal-lucknow-and-others-41982
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
if the said plea is applicable to all similarly
situated persons.

31. So far the school is concerned, the
land has been allotted to it. It is for the
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad to proceed and
finalise the matter, if it has not yet been
finalised.

32. Thus, the allotment cannot be
questioned on the ground that the land in
question was recorded as pond, at some
point of time.

33. In view of the above, the petition
has no force, which is hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.,
THE HON'BLE S.C. CHAURASIA, J.

Writ Petition No. 3424 (SB) of 1994

Maidan Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow
and others

 ...Opposite parties

Constitution of India, Article 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-Dismissal order-copy of
supported documents-enquiry report not
given-State Tribunal inspite of specific Plea
in claim petition about personal hearingignored this fact-held-approach of Tribunal
wholly incorrect as well as against Judicial
Discipline-dismissal order quashed without
salary during which-petitioner was out of
service.

Held: Para 18

It is also pertinent to mention that claim
petition of one B.D. Sharma, who was
superior officer and was In-charge of the
Centre, where the petitioner was posted,
against whom disciplinary proceeding was
also initiated like the petitioner, his order
of dismissal was quashed by the Tribunal
on account of irregularities in the inquiry
vide judgment and order dated 3.9.1993.
It has also come on record that the said
B.D. Sharma in compliance of the judicial
order was reinstated in service. On the
other hand, petitioner's claim petition was
rejected
by
the
Tribunal
only
after
scrutinizing charges levelled against him,
but the pleas of non-supply of documents,
opportunity
of
personal
hearing
and
defects in enquiry were not dealt with
properly in the judgment. This approach of
the Tribunal is wholly incorrect, improper
and against the judicial discipline. In these
circumstances, the impugned order of
dismissal cannot be sustained and is liable
to be set aside.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1961 SC 1623; (1998) 6 SCC 651; (2008) 8
SCC 236; [2003] (21) LCD 610; AIR 1968 SC
158; AIR 1963 SC 1719; (1986) 3 SCC 229;
(1986) 3 SCC 229

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

Heard Sri M.S. Siddiqui, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and the State
Counsel.

2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ
petition being aggrieved by the Judgment
and Order dated 13.1.1994, passed by the
U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in
short, referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby
the claim petition preferred by the petitioner
against the order of dismissal dated
19.2.1985 was rejected.

3. From the material on record, it
comes out that the petitioner was working
as Kamdar/Clerk in the year 1984 at
Danapur Centre, District Bulandshahar. For
dereliction
in
discharge
of
duties,
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against
the petitioner and a charge sheet was given
to him on 28.7.1984. As the charges against
3 All] Maidan Singh V. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others
1289
the petitioner were found proved, the
disciplinary proceedings culminated in
passing of dismissal order dated 19.2.1985
by the competent authority. Aggrieved by
the said dismissal order, the petitioner
approached the Tribunal by filing Claim
Petition No. 83/F/IV/85 inter-alia on the
ground that the enquiry was conducted in
breach of the provisions of natural justice
and the documents which were utilized
against the petitioner were never supplied to
him. Further, more serious charges were
levelled against B.D. Sharma, who was Incharge of the Danapur Centre and his order
of dismissal was quashed on account of
defects in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the learned Tribunal
committed serious error in not appreciating
the vital fact that there were defects and
breach of principle of natural justice in
conducting the departmental enquiry and as
such the order of dismissal cannot be
sustained. It has also been argued that the
Tribunal fell into error in not considering
the fact that the Tribunal itself has allowed
the claim petition of Sri B.D. Sharma,
Marketing Inspector though he was the Incharge of the Centre and against him serious
charges of embezzlement were levelled.

5. On the other hand, Standing
Counsel has submitted that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal. Whatever
pleas have been raised by the petitioner,
same were considered by the Tribunal but
were not found tenable. As regard the
disciplinary proceeding, Standing Counsel
has submitted that the order of dismissal
was
passed
after
giving
reasonable
opportunity of hearing and a finding of fact
in this regard has also been recorded by the
Tribunal.

6. The main thrust of the argument of
the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that
the disciplinary proceedings and the
consequent punishment order are vitiated on
account of non observance of the principles
of natural justice. At the outset, it may be
mentioned that the petitioner has been
punished alongwith senior officer, i.e.
Marketing Inspector.

7. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan;
AIR 1961 SC 1623; State of U.P. vs.
Shatrughan Lal and another; (1998) 6
SCC 651 and State of uttaranchal and
others vs. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236,
the Apex Court has emphasized that a
proper opportunity must be afforded to a
government servant at the stage of the
enquiry, after the charge sheet is supplied to
the delinquent as well as at the second stage
when punishment is about to be imposed on
him. In State of Uttaranchal & ors. V.
Kharak Singh (supra) the Apex Court has
enumerated some of the basic principles
regarding 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
1290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
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]

8. On receipt of the enquiry report,
before proceeding further, it is incumbent
on the part of the disciplinary/punishing
authority to supply a copy of the enquiry
report and all connected materials relied on
by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer
his views, if any.

9. 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
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 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 crossexamination, as he desires. Then he must be
given a chance to rebut the evidence led
against him.

10 In State of U.P. v. C.S. Sharma,
AIR 1968 SC 158 the Supreme Court held
that omission to give opportunity to an
employee to produce his witnesses and lead
evidence in his defence vitiates the
proceedings.

11. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their
Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1719 the Supreme
Court observed "it is an elementary
principle that a person who is required to
answer the charge must know not only the
accusation but also the testimony by which
the accusation is supported. He must be
given a fair chance to hear the evidence in
support of the charge and to put such
relevant questions by way of crossexamination as he desires. Then he must be
given a chance to rebut the evidence led
against him. This is the barest requirement
of an enquiry of this character and this
requirement must be substantially fulfilled,
if the result of the enquiry is to be accepted.

12. It would be useful to mention that
In Kashinath Dikshita versus Union of
India and others; (1986)3 SCC 229 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that no
one facing a departmental enquiry can
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 have been held to be an
essential
ingredient
in
disciplinary
proceedings and following these principles,
3 All] Maidan Singh V. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others
1291
the Apex Court set-aside the order of
removal.

13. Fundamental requirement of law
is that the doctrine of natural justice should
be complied with and has, as a matter of
fact, turned out to be an integral part of
administrative jurisprudence. It was also
held in this case that at an enquiry facts
have to be proved and the person proceeded
against must have an opportunity to crossexamine witnesses and to give his own
version or explanation about the evidence
on which he is charged and to lead his
defence.

14. In Kashinath Dikshita versus
Union of India and others; (1986)3 SCC
229 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized
that no one facing a departmental enquiry
can 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 and following this principle,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court set-aside the
order
of
removal
of
the
petitioner
Bhupinder Pal Singh.

15. I have given my anxious
consideration to the facts and circumstances
of the case and have also examined the
material on record. No document has been
brought on record, by the respondents, from
which it emerges out that documents
demanded by the petitioner were either
supplied to him or he was allowed to
inspect the same. In other words, Counsel
for the respondent has also failed to show
that the documents, which were demanded
by the petitioner, were supplied to him
during the course of enquiry.

16. After minutely examining the
materials on record, I have no hesitation in
saying that the inquiry was 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 substantial illegality and
violative of principles of natural justice, the
order of punishment vitiates.

17. A perusal of the impugned
judgment shows that the Tribunal nowhere
has dealt with the pleas raised by the
petitioner
regarding
non-supply
of
documents and reasonable opportunity of
personal hearing. When specific pleas were
raised by the petitioner, it was incumbent
upon the Tribunal to record specific finding
in this regard. Even in the counter affidavit
filed in the writ petition, only a cursory
statement has been made that the petitioner
was given reasonable opportunity, but no
document has been proved to show that the
documents as demanded by the petitioner
were supplied to him during the course of
inquiry. It is a definite stand of the
petitioner in the writ petition before this
Court as well as before the Tribunal in the
claim petition that no opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses was given and the
documents demanded by him were not
supplied to him, which has caused serious
prejudice to him. Such lapse would vitiate
the departmental proceedings unless it is
shown and established as a fact that nonsupply of copies of those documents had
not caused any prejudice to the delinquent
in his defence.
1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

18. It is also pertinent to mention that
claim petition of one B.D. Sharma, who was
superior officer and was In-charge of the
Centre, where the petitioner was posted,
against whom disciplinary proceeding was
also initiated like the petitioner, his order of
dismissal was quashed by the Tribunal on
account of irregularities in the inquiry vide
judgment and order dated 3.9.1993. It has
also come on record that the said B.D.
Sharma in compliance of the judicial order
was reinstated in service. On the other hand,
petitioner's claim petition was rejected by
the Tribunal only after scrutinizing charges
levelled against him, but the pleas of nonsupply of documents, opportunity of
personal hearing and defects in enquiry
were not dealt with properly in the
judgment. This approach of the Tribunal is
wholly incorrect, improper and against the
judicial discipline. In these circumstances,
the impugned order of dismissal cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order of
dismissal dated 19.2.1985 and impugned
Judgment and order dated 13.1.1994,
contained as Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the
writ petition, are hereby quashed. The
petitioner shall be reinstated in service, but
on the principle of 'no work no pay', he shall
not be entitled for arrears of salary.
However, the period during which he
remained out of service shall be treated as
period on duty and shall be calculated for all
other purposes. Consequences shall follow.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ;LUCKNOW 15.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Writ Petition No. 3611 (MB) of 2011 [P.I.L]

Sachchidanand (Sachchey) ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Akhlesh Kalra, Adv.
Mr. Prince Lenin, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Adv.

Counsel for the Interveners:
Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv.
Dr. L.P. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Dixit, Adv.
Mr. Dwijendra Mishra, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr.J.N.Mathur,Sr.Adv.,Additional Advocate
General
Dr. Ashok Nigam, Sr. Adv., Additional
Solicitor General
Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Additional
Solicitor General
Mr. I.H. Farooqui, Adv., Assistant Solicitor
General
Mr. D.K. Upadhyaya, Adv., Chief Standing
Counsel
Mr. Bireshwar Nath, Adv.
Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Verma, Adv.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Public
Interest Litigation-seeking direction of
enquiry by C.B.I.-gross misappropriation
of N.R.H.M. fund by public officer with
collusion of society-deliberate act and
omission
to
abuse
N.R.H.M.
fundirregular
purchase
of
medicines,