Service Law; Rajendra Prasad Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court, 15-12-2017]

Service Law – Even if, an employee prefers to participate in the enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case the charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon’ble Siddharth, J.

Delivered on 15.12.2017

WRIT – A No. – 21838 of 2016

Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Budhwar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nripendra Mishra

Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing for the punishment order dated 27.04.2016, passed by respondent no.2, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service and recovery of Rs.21,24,648/- + interest of Rs.5,73,364/- has been directed from his salary.

The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner, while working as Manager and also Divisional Incharge of Mirzapur Division of the respondent no.2, U.P. State Employee Welfare Corporation, 742, Jawahar Bhavan, Lucknow, was suspended from service by the order dated 20.06.2013. A Charge Sheet dated 20.07.2013 was served upon him charging him of 3 charges of indiscipline, negligence and of causing loss to the Corporation, on account of collusion with the contractor and transporter.

The petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Sheet on 22.08.2013, denying the charges and asserted that whatever illegality was there has been committed by one Sushil Kumar Srivastava, the Centre Incharge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and without holding any oral enquiry, he tendered his enquiry report dated 27.01.2014. The Copy of Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith a Show Cause Notice dated 24.06.2015 by the respondent no.2, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.07.2015. The respondent no.2 thereafter passed the impugned punishment order dismissing his from service and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.21,24,648/- plus interest amount to Rs.5,73,364/-, hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The respondent no.2 has filed his Counter Affidavit stating that the impugned order is appealable before the Principal Secretary( (Food & Civil Supply), U.P. Government, Lucknow and therefore the petition may be dismissed. It has been further stated that the enquiry against the petitioner is in accordance with Rules, fair and proper. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of personal hearing on 16.09.2013 and thereafter on 27.09.2013, the statement of the petitioner and other employees were recorded. Each and every reply to the Charge Sheet submitted by the petitioner has been discussed and thereafter the enquiry report has been submitted. No documentary evidence in support of the above averments have been annexed with the Counter Affidavit.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
News Reporter