# Ram Rekha Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1272
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-09-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17459 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dinesh Maheshwari, Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-rekha-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43122
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Appeal) Rules 1999-Rule-7-Termination
with recovery of Rs. 26,17,408/- towards
alleged loss-petitioner working as Block
Development
Officer-placed
under
suspension-quashed on ground of unduedelay-after receiving reply to show cause
notice-impugned
termination
order
passed-without
following
procedure
prescribed under Rule in utter violation
Natural Justice-termination order quashed
with reinstatement in service-enquiry to
be concluded from stage of serving charge
sheet-to conclude disciplinary proceeding
within 4 months.
Held: Para-22 & 24

## Text

1272
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Recognition
of
Trade
Unions
and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 provides for a catalogue of
unfair labour practices, such as engaging
employees on daily wage, casual or
temporary basis, the remedy under the
industrial law would, in such cases, be
available, as held by the Supreme Court in
Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation
Vs
Casteribe
Rajya
P.
Karmchari
Sanghatana13.
However,
a
general
direction of the nature which was issued
by the learned Single Judge in the present
case cannot be issued in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
17. For these reasons, we are of the
view that the impugned judgement and
order of the learned Single Judge would
have to be set aside and is set aside to the
extent it directs the State to grant to the
first respondent salary equivalent to the
salary payable to the lowest grade of an
employee holding the post of sweeper in
the State and for the payment of arrears
w.e.f. 8 February 1994. We, however,
direct that from the date of the decision of
the learned Single Judge, namely 16 April
2014, the first respondent would be
entitled to the payment of minimum
wages as applicable in the State under the
relevant notification, or as the case may
be, Government Order holding the field.
18.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
19. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17459 of 2012
Ram Rekha Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, Sri Manoj
Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Sri
V.P. Mathur
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules 1999-Rule-7-Termination
with recovery of Rs. 26,17,408/- towards
alleged loss-petitioner working as Block
Development
Officer-placed
under
suspension-quashed on ground of unduedelay-after receiving reply to show cause
notice-impugned
termination
order
passed-without
following
procedure
prescribed under Rule in utter violation
Natural Justice-termination order quashed
with reinstatement in service-enquiry to
be concluded from stage of serving charge
sheet-to conclude disciplinary proceeding
within 4 months.
Held: Para-22 & 24
22. Noteworthy it is that even in the
punishment order, as regards practically
all the charges against the petitioner, the
disciplinary
authority
has
merely
observed that the delinquent had not
adduced any evidence to refute the
charges and hence, the same stood
proved. The basic requirement of the
primary evidence on the part of the
department to substantiate the charges
appears to have been ignored as if with
the assumption that levelling of charges
was sufficient and no evidence was
requisite to substantiate the same. This
approach cannot be countenanced.
3 All]. Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1273
24. In view of what has been discussed
hereinabove, the impugned order of
punishment and also the inquiry report
are required to be quashed. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
it appears just and proper to allow the
respondents to hold the disciplinary
proceedings afresh from the stage of
serving of the charge sheet.
Case Law discussed:
(2010) 2 SCC 772; 2012 (1) AWC 354; 2008
(1) ADJ 284; W.P. No. 369763 of 2010.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
1. By way of this writ petition, the
petitioner, who had been serving as Block
Development Officer, has questioned the
order dated 01.02.2012 as passed by the
State Government in conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings that his services
shall stand terminated and an amount of
Rs.26,17,408/- shall be recovered from
him towards the alleged loss to the
Government. The order so passed against
him has been questioned by the petitioner
essentially on the grounds that the entire
disciplinary proceedings had been in
violation of the provisions of the U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999('the Rules of 1999'
hereafter) as also the basic principles of
natural justice.
2.
The issue involved in the present
matter being related to the validity of the
disciplinary proceedings, only a brief
reference to the background aspects of the
matter would suffice. The petitioner,
working as Block Development Officer,
Nagra/ Rasra, District Ballia, was placed
under suspension in contemplation of an
inquiry
by
the
order
dated
11.10.2007(Annexure No.2). In this order
of suspension, seven distinct allegations
were made against the petitioner, essentially
of the nature that he indulged in
misappropriation of the government money
by various acts of improper and illegal
payments towards different works. By
another order dated 11.10.2007(Annexure
No.3), the Collector, Basti was appointed as
the Inquiry Officer but then, by yet another
order dated 05.12.2007, the Collector,
Ballia was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.
The petitioner was, thereafter, served with a
charge sheet by the Collector, Ballia on
15.05.2008; though this charge sheet was
dated 11.10.2007. In this charge sheet, as
many as fifteen different charges were
levelled against the petitioner. It is the case
of the petitioner that he had already
submitted an explanation/ representation
dated 15.12.2007 in relation to the seven
charges which were mentioned in the
suspension order dated 11.10.2007; and that
regarding eight new charges in the charge
sheet, documents were required, which he
demanded
under
his
letter
dated
15.05.2008(Annexure No.6) but the same
were not supplied to him.
3. The petitioner has averred that
after service of the charge sheet on
15.05.2008, he was not given any notice
regarding any further action taken by the
Inquiry Officer in relation to the inquiry
proceedings. On the other hand, by an
order dated 17.06.2008(Annexure No.7),
he was reinstated in service, revoking the
order of suspension on the ground that
there was delay in receiving the report
from the Inquiry Officer. However, later
on, the petitioner was served with the
notice dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure No.8),
enclosing therewith a copy of the inquiry
report, said to have been drawn by the
Inquiry Officer on 02.06.2008.
1274
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. The opening remarks in the inquiry
report dated 02.06.2008, indicating the
background in which, and the basis on
which, the inquiry report was drawn deserve
to be noticed for their relevance and the
same are reproduced as under :-
"Jh jkejs[kk flag ;kno] [k.M
fodkl vf/kdkjh] uxjk@jlM+k] tuin
cfy;k dks dfri; vkjksiksa esa izeq[k
lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kklu] xzkE; fodkl
vuqHkkx&1 ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k
4603@38&1&2007&94f'k0@06
fnukad
11
vDVwcj
2007
}kjk
fuyfEcr djds muds fo:) foHkkxh;
dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh x;h vkSj bl
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa ftykf/kdkjh]
cLrh dks tkWp vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k
x;kA iqu% mRrj izns'k 'kklu] xzkE;
fodkl vuqHkkx&1 ds dk;kZy; Kki
la'kks/ku
la[;k
5325@38&1&2007&94f'kdk0@06
y[kuÅ fnukad 05 fnlEcj 2007 }kjk
v/kksgLrk{kjh dks tkWp vf/kdkjh ukfer
fd;k x;k gSA
Jh jkejs[kk flag ;kno] fuyfEcr
vf/kdkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds
laca/k esa vkjksi i= xfBr dj jkT;iky]
mRrj izns'k 'kklu dh vksj ls vuqeksfnr
vkjksi
i=
la[;k
5026@38&1&07&97f'k0@06
y[kuÅ
fnukad 11 vDVwcj 2007 Jh jkejs[kk flag
;kno] mijksDr dks miyC/k djkus gsrq
iwokZf/kdkjh@tkap vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ls
fuxZr fd;k x;k ijUrq ;g vkjksi i= vkjksih
vf/kdkjh Jh jkejs[kk flag 1⁄4fuyfEcr1⁄2 [k.M
fodkl vf/kdkjh ij fof/k lEer :i ls rkehy u
gksus ds QyLo:i mUgs mDr vkjksi i= ,oa
izLrkfor lk{; lfgr fnukad 15-05-2008 dks
O;fDrxr :i ls miyC/k djk;k x;k rFkk
mUgksus fnukad 15-05-08 dks gh fyf[kr
:i ls vkosnu i= fn;k fd og 03 fnu ds vUnj
1⁄4vFkkZr 18-05-081⁄2 rd viuk Li"Vhdj.k
izLrqr dj nsxsa ijUrq muds }kjk mDr
vkjksi i= dk izR;qRrj vFkok Li"Vhdj.k
vHkh rd izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gSA
mDr vkjksi i= ds lkis{k Li"Vhdj.k
nsus ds LFkku ij Jh jke js[kk flag ;kno
1⁄4fuyfEcr1⁄2 vfrpkjh deZpkjh }kjk fuEu
vkosnu i= v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy;
esa izLrqr fd, x;s gS%
1⁄4d1⁄2 izeq[k lfpo] m0iz0 'kklu] xzkE;
fodkl dks ftykf/kdkjh@tkap vf/kdkjh ds
ek/;e ls lEcksf/kr vkosnu i= fnukad 11-032008 tks fd fuyEcu vkns'k fnukad 11-102007 ds dze esa tkap ,oa Li"Vhdj.k gsrq
izLrqr fd;k x;k 1⁄4izfr layXu1⁄2 gSA mDr i=
esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vipkjh vf/kdkjh dks
vkjksi i= ds lk{; izkIr ugh gS rFkk vkjksi i=
ds dqN foUnqvksa ij viuk Li"Vhdj.k nsrs
gq, 'ks"k dk;Z dks iwjk djus ds fy, Jh
lqcsnkj flag] voj vfHk;Urk ,oa 'ks"k
Hkqxrku djus ds fy, jkejs[kk flag [k.M fodkl
vf/kdkjh ds uxjk ,oa jlM+k dk dk;ZHkkj
nsus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gSA
1⁄4[k1⁄2 vkjksi i= fnukad 15-05-2008
dks izLrkfor leLr lk{; izkIr djus ds
mijkUr vfrpkjh vf/kdjh us fnukad 15-0508] ftls dk;kZy; esa fnukad 17-05-08
dks miyC/k djk;k x;k gS] es rFkkdfFkr
mRrj fnukad 15-12-2007 ,oa ekax i=
fnukad 05-05-2008 dh ckr dgh xbZ
gS] bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr ugh gSA
vr,o vkjksih Jh jkejs[kk flag ;kno]
1⁄4fuyfEcr1⁄2 vf/kdkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s dqy
15 vkjksiksa ds lUnHkZ esa i=koyh ij
miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ,oa muds }kjk fn, x,
lanfHkZr vkosnu i=ksa ds ijh{k.kksijkUr
vkjksiokj foopsuk ds dze esa tkWp vk[;k
fuEuor gS%"
5.
After the aforesaid remarks, the
Inquiry Officer proceeded essentially with
3 All]. Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1275
the observations that the relevant record
was with the delinquent himself who had
failed
to
state
any
explanation/
justification in relation to the charges; and
found charge no.1 partially proved and
charges no.2 to 15 fully proved against
him.
6. The petitioner submitted a reply
to the notice dated 30.07.2008 on
13.02.2009(Annexure No.9), denying all
the charges and the findings; and asserted
that the record was available with other
officers. Thereafter, the Government
proceeded to pass the order dated
01.02.2012, awarding punishment, as
noticed at the outset.
7. Questioning the order so passed
against him, the petitioner has urged that
the entire proceedings against him had
been in violation of the Rules of 1999 as
also the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner has referred to Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1999 and has submitted that after
denial of imputations, the Inquiry Officer
was bound to call the witnesses to prove
the charges and to record the oral
evidence in the presence of petitioner,
who was required to be given an
opportunity
to
cross
examine
the
witnesses; and thereafter, the petitioner
was to be afforded the opportunity to lead
evidence in defence. It is also submitted
that even non-submission of explanation
by the delinquent is not decisive of the
matter nor could be considered ipso facto
admission of the guilt; and the charges of
misappropriation/
embezzlement
are
required to be proved by cogent evidence
and finding of guilt could be recorded
only on the basis of such evidence.
According to the petitioner, after serving
of the charge sheet on 15.05.2008, the
Inquiry Officer neither fixed any date,
time and place for holding the inquiry, nor
examined any witness, nor afforded any
opportunity to him to produce the
evidence.
It
is submitted that the
documents requested by the petitioner for
giving effective reply to the charge sheet
were not supplied to him.
8. It may be observed that the
petitioner
has
also
taken
detailed
averments in relation to the merits of the
charges levelled against him and has
attempted to show that the charges were
either
misplaced
or
were
not
substantiated. However, looking to the
scope of this petition and the order
proposed to be passed, we would prefer
not to dilate upon the merits of the
charges in this order and such aspects are
left at that only.
9. The respondents have filed the
counter affidavit seeking to contest the
submissions made by the petitioner. It is
submitted by the respondents that the
petitioner
has
been
involved
in
embezzlement
of
huge
amount
of
government money and as such, under a
detailed charge sheet along with the
material documents the inquiry was
conducted through duly appointed Inquiry
Officer. The respondents have alleged that
the petitioner tried to avoid the charge
sheet and ultimately, he received the same
only after advertisement was made in the
newspaper
on
06.03.2008.
The
respondents have further alleged that the
petitioner did receive all the material
documents annexed with the charge sheet
but chose not to file any reply to the
charge sheet and hence, the Inquiry
Officer was left with no option but to
proceed with the inquiry along with the
material documents available with the
department; and after due proceedings,
1276
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the petitioner avoided, the Inquiry
Officer submitted a detailed inquiry report
in pursuance whereof a show cause notice
along with inquiry report was served upon
the petitioner; and after due consideration of
the petitioner's reply, final punishment order
was passed by the competent authority.
According to the respondents the inquiry
proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated on
any count or at any stage. Respondents have
also refuted the submissions of the
petitioner about non supplying of the
documents with reference to the letter of the
petitioner dated 15.05.2008(Annexure
-
C.A.2) that therein the petitioner himself
admitted having received all the documents/
evidence relied upon in the charge sheet and
gave an undertaking for submission of reply
within three days, but he did not file any
reply even until finalization of the inquiry.
The respondents have also contested the
submission of the petitioner that no time,
date and place was fixed by the Inquiry
Officer
and
have
referred
to
the
communication of the Inquiry Officer dated
05.05.2008 (Annexure-C.A.3) whereby, the
petitioner was informed that 15.05.2008
was the date fixed for the purpose of
inquiry. The respondents have also denied
the averments of the petitioner about the
submission of the representation dated
15.05.2008 with the assertion that no such
letter was received in the office of the
respondents authorities, nor the same was
available with the Inquiry Officer.
10.

Thus,
according
to
the
respondents there were no shortcomings
in the inquiry proceedings and in the case
of
serious
financial
irregularities/
embezzlement
where
the
petitioner
retained and withheld the documents
himself, the punishment order has rightly
been passed after due inquiry in which the
petitioner was given proper and ample
opportunities to defend.
11. The respondents have also
attempted to join the issue on the merits
of
the
charges
but,
as
observed
hereinbefore, we do not propose to enter
into the merits of the charges in this order
and hence, those aspects are not being
dilated upon.
12. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder
affidavit, refuting the allegation that he
attempted to avoid the service of charge
sheet; and has submitted that charge sheet
was served upon him on 15.05.2008 and no
date in the inquiry was fixed by the Inquiry
Officer thereafter, nor any evidence was
recorded by the Inquiry Officer, nor any
opportunity was given to him to lead
evidence, and, Inquiry Officer straightway
submitted the inquiry report within a short
period of 18 days in utter disregard to the
provisions of the Rules of 1999 and
principles of natural justice.
13. The learned counsel for the parties
have made the submissions in conformity
with the averments taken and the grounds
urged
in
the
pleadings
as
noticed
hereinabove. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to and relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha,
(2010) 2 SCC 772, and of this Court in the
case of Mahesh Narain Gupta Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012 (1) AWC 354, Mohd.
Javed Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2008 (1) ADJ 284, and Vijay Kumar Sinha
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.36973 of 2010 decided on
19.04.2011.
14.

Having
given
anxious
consideration to the rival submissions and
having
examined
the
record
with
3 All]. Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1277
reference to the law applicable, we are
unable to to approve the process of the
disciplinary proceedings, as adopted by
the respondents in this case; and we are
clearly of the view that the punishment
order
consequent
to
these
invalid
proceedings deserve to be annulled while
leaving it open for the respondents to take
up the proceedings in accordance with
law.
15. It remains trite that in
departmental inquiry proceedings, the
requirement of rules in particular and the
principles of natural justice in general are
required
to
be
followed;
and
the
proceedings held in violation thereof
cannot be sustained. In the case of Saroj
Kumar Sinha(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, inter alia, said,
29. Apart from the above, by virtue
of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement
of the rules of natural justice that an
employee
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard in any
proceedings which may culminate in
punishment
being
imposed
on
the
employee.
30. When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant
it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The
inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required
to be observed to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to be
done. 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.
16. It is also not a matter of much
debate that even if the delinquent does not
submit his reply to the charge sheet the
Inquiry Officer cannot conclude that the
charges
stood
automatically
proved.
Recording of necessary evidence with
participation of the delinquent in such a
process is also the basic requirement of
fair opportunity of hearing in such matters
of disciplinary proceedings. In the case of
Mahesh Narain Gupta (supra), while
referring to several of the decided cases,
this Court, inter alia, said,
16. As it is a case of non recording of
any evidence either oral or documentary
in
the
enquiry
proceedings
and
submission of the enquiry report justifying
all the charges only on the ground of nonfiling of the reply/ evidence from the
petitioner's side, we are of the view that
going into merit of the charges and to
record own finding may be neither proper
nor justified as that will be again exercise
in ex parte manner behind the back of the
petitioner, i.e., without opportunity to
him.
17. At this stage, we are to observe
that in the disciplinary proceedings
against a delinquent, the department is
just like a plaintiff and initial burden lies
on the department to prove the charges
which can certainly be proved only by
collecting
some
oral
evidence
or
documentary evidence, in presence and
notice of charged employee. Even if the
department is to rely its own record/
document which are already available,
then also the Enquiry Officer by looking
into them and by assigning his own
reason after analysis will have to record a
1278
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
finding
that
those
documents
are
sufficient enough to prove the charges.
18. In no case, approach of the
Enquiry Officer that as no reply has been
submitted, the charges will have to be
automatically proved can be approved.
This will be erroneous. It has been
repeatedly said that disciplinary authority
has a right to proceed against delinquent
employee in ex parte manner but some
evidence will have to be collected and
justification to sustain the charges will
have to be stated in detail. The approach
of the Enquiry Officer of automatic prove
of charges on account of non-filing of
reply
is
clearly
misconceived
and
erroneous. This is against the principle of
natural justice, fair play, fair hearing
and, thus, Enquiry Officer has to be
cautioned in this respect.
17. We need not to multiply the
reference to the authorities in the present
case, because herein, it is explicit and
apparent that the petitioner has been
denied a fair opportunity of hearing and in
fact, the proceedings have been conducted
in a rather casual and perfunctory manner.
18. It is clear from the own showing
of
the
respondents
that
after
the
advertisement in the newspaper on
06.03.2008, a notice was served upon the
petitioner for the purpose of the inquiry
proceedings on 15.05.2008 at 3:00 p.m. in
the office of the Collector, Ballia(vide
Annexure - C.A.-3). The petitioner is said
to have appeared before the Inquiry
Officer on 15.5.2008(Annexure - C.A.-2)
and submitted that he would file the reply
within three days. The petitioner has
stated in this writ petition that he made a
representation dated 15.05.2008 with the
submissions that he had already stated his
explanation as regards seven charges
contained in the order of suspension and
regarding eight new charges in the charge
sheet, documents were required, which had
already been asked for and the same may be
supplied. The document in support of these
submissions has been filled as Annexure - 6
to the petition. This document Annexure - 6
bears the seal and signatures from the office
of the Collector, Ballia dated 17.05.2008. It
is difficult to accept the suggestions made by
the respondents in their reply that the said
representation was not received in their
office or was not available with the Inquiry
Officer.
19. In the given fact situation, even
if it be assumed that there had been any
miscommunication, it is further difficult
to
accept
the
submissions
of
the
respondents that the petitioner was not at
all interested in participating in the
inquiry proceedings.
20. Moreover, and even if all the
submissions of the respondents are taken
on their face value, it remains seriously
questionable yet as to on what basis and
evidence had the Inquiry Officer drawn
his report dated 02.06.2008 ? The entire
of the report nowhere mentions about
even a single witness having been
examined in support of the charges
levelled against the petitioner. It has also
not been shown that after 15.05.2008, the
Inquiry Officer ever fixed any other date
for proceedings ahead with the inquiry.
21. In a comprehension of record,
the conclusion is irresistible that the
inquiry proceedings had been conducted
in a casual manner and with a closed
mind. For no witnesses having been
examined and no opportunity having been
extended to the petitioner, we are clearly
3 All]. Ram Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1279
of the view that the proceedings cannot be
sustained. The order passed consequent to
such proceedings by the respondents is
liable to be set aside.
22. Noteworthy it is that even in the
punishment order, as regards practically
all the charges against the petitioner, the
disciplinary
authority
has
merely
observed that the delinquent had not
adduced any evidence to refute the
charges and hence, the same stood
proved. The basic requirement of the
primary evidence on the part of the
department to substantiate the charges
appears to have been ignored as if with
the assumption that levelling of charges
was sufficient and no evidence was
requisite to substantiate the same. This
approach cannot be countenanced.
23. We may also observe that it has
repeatedly been sought to be asserted by
the Inquiry Officer as also by the
disciplinary authority that the relevant
record was retained by the delinquent
himself. Significantly, even the primary
evidence in this regard had also not been
adduced to establish that the referred
record was in the possession of the
delinquent-petitioner.
24. In view of what has been
discussed hereinabove, the impugned
order of punishment and also the inquiry
report are required to be quashed.
However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, it appears just and proper to
allow the respondents to hold the
disciplinary proceedings afresh from the
stage of serving of the charge sheet.
25. Accordingly and in view of
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed to that extent and in the manner
indicated.
The
impugned
order
of
punishment dated 01.02.2012 and so also
the inquiry report dated 02.06.2008 are
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall
be reinstated in service forthwith. The
respondents shall hold the disciplinary
proceedings afresh from the stage of serving
of charge sheet and for that purpose, it shall
be open for the respondents to appoint any
other Inquiry Officer, if so chosen. The
Inquiry Officer shall fix a date for
proceeding with the inquiry with due notice
to the petitioner and shall attempt to
conclude the proceedings at the earliest,
preferably within a period of four months
from the first date of appearance of the
petitioner. The payment of arrears and
salary etc., for the period during which the
petitioner had remained out of service, shall
be subject to the final decision taken by the
respondents
while
concluding
the
proceedings afresh.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23783 of 2010
Neetu Devi...
Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri C.B. Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rajesh Tripathi
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956-Rule 29,
30(4),
51(1)
and
77
(3)-Duty
of
electricity department to maintain proper
supply-petitioner's husband about 26
years loss of his life due to electrocution-