IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1508 of 2002 Mohan Singh Verma S/o Sri Kanhiya Lal Verma R/o 227 Dalpat Khiraki Mathura R/o 227 Dalpat Khiraki Mathura District-Mathura U.P. …………..…Petitioner. Versus 1. U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. Pant Nagar Post Haldi, Nainital, Uttaranchal Through its Chairman. 2. Managing Director U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Chief Finance Officer Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. Pant Nagar, Post Haldi, Nainital. 4. Company Secretary, Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. Pant Nagar, Post Haldi District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri Manoj Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri Alok Mehra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri G.D. Joshi, counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.06.2002, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the minimum pay scale, payable to him. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Dispatch Assistant with respondent No. 1 in the year 1985. He proceeded on leave w.e.f. 20.01.1992, and got sanctioned his leave till 22.02.1992. On 21.02.1992, he sought extension of his medical leave till 30.03.1992. When he failed to join even thereafter, the respondent/corporation, sent a telegram to the petitioner to join his duties immediately. However, he did not turn up and a charge sheet dated 03.04.1992, was issued to him to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.04.1992. He sent an application in May 1992, seeking sanction of his medical leave for the period of his absence. A further show cause notice was given to him on 03.06.1992 on which the petitioner reported to duty on 04.06.1992. However, he was not allowed to join his duties and his services were terminated vide order dated 19.06.1992. Said order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before Allahabad High Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35171 of 1992. The writ petition was decided by Allahabad High Court, vide its order dated 18.07.2000, whereby order of termination was quashed with the observation that respondent shall complete the enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, petitioner was 3 allowed to join his duties and enquiry proceeded further with fresh charge sheet. On completion of the enquiry (after giving necessary opportunity of hearing to the petitioner), the impugned order dated 23.06.2002, was passed by respondent No. 2, holding that the charge against the petitioner are proved and he is reverted back to minimum pay scale, payable to him. Aggrieved by said order, this petition has been filed. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No. 1 Corporation, has been taken over by respondent No. 5 Corporation, as such, separate counter affidavits have been filed- one on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and another on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 8. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4, it is stated that the petitioner’s performance in the service was not satisfactory and he was a habitual leave taker. He used to abscond from duty. It is also stated that petitioner wilfully remained absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 21.02.1992 to 19.05.1992. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that even after being asked, the petitioner failed to join his duties. It is also stated in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of being heard, and the order dated 18.07.2000, passed by Allahabad High Court was complied with. Even before passing order of punishment, he was again given a show cause 4 notice, as such, order passed by respondent No.2 suffers from no illegality. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no fresh charge-sheet could have been served on the petitioner, after order of termination was quashed by Allahabad High Court, vide its order dated 18.07.2000 (copy of which is annexure-6 to the writ petition). However, on going through said order, this Court does not find any bar that no fresh charge sheet shall be served on the petitioner. What is required under law is that whatever charge is framed against the petitioner, he should be given proper opportunity of hearing. From the perusal of the enquiry report, copy of which is annexure-10 to the writ petition, it is clear that due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the petitioner participated in the enquiry and defended himself. The two charges on which the enquiry was conducted, read as under:- “vkjksi la[;k%&1 Jh eksgj flag oekZ ds izkFkZuk i= fnukad 02@01@1992 ds dze esa fnukad 20@1@1992 la 20@2@1992 rd 32 fnukad dk mikftZr vodk’k Lohd`r fd;k x;kA Lohd`r mikftZr vodk’k dh lekfIr ij fnukad 21@2@1992 esa vukf/kd`r :I ls LosPNk ls yxkrkj fnukad 31@5@1998 rd dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgsA vkjksi la[;k%&2 5 Jh eksgu flag oekZ dks fpfdRld }kjk fnukad 18@05@1992 dks tkjh LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds dze esa fnukad 19@05@1992 dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk FkkA fdUrq dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u dj izkFkZuk i= fnukad 19@05@1992 ds ek/;e ls detksjh dk mYys[k djrs gq, fnukad 01@06@1992 dks Hkh ;ksxnku nsus gsrq fuxe dks lwfpr fd;kA ijUrq fnukad 01@06@1992 dks Hkh ;ksxnku ugha fn;k x;k u gh bl vof/k ds fy, fpfdRlk izek.k i= Hkstk x;kA vr,o LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds fo:) yxkrkj LosPNk ls dk;Z esa vuqifLFkr jgsA Jh oekZ dk ;g dFku fd fnukad 04@05@1992 dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k x;k] fpfdRlk&de&LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vlR; gSA bl izdkj Jh oekZ }kjk xry c;kuh ,oa /kks[kk&/kM+h dh x;h gSA” After discussing the evidence on record, the enquiry officer has concluded as under: “fu"d"kZ% Jh oekZ dks fpfdRld }kjk iznRr fpfdRlk&de&LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 19@05@1992 dks viuk ;ksxnku nsuk pkfg, FkkA ijUrq bUgksusa ,slk ugha fd;k oju~ LosPNk ls vius foods ls 01 twu] 1992 dks ;ksxnku nsus gsrq lwfpr fd;k ,ao fnukad 01 twu] 1992 dks Hkh dk;Z ij ;ksxnku ugha fn;kA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh oekZ fpfdRld }kjk fuxZr fpfdRlk&de&LoLFkrk izek.k i= ds fo:) LosPNk ls dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgsA (2) Jh eksgu oekZ }kjk iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh dks fnukad 04@05@1992 dks ;ksxnku vk[;k izLrqr dh x;h gS (irkdk&5)A bl vk[;k esa fy[kk gS fd fnukad 21@02@1992 ls 03@05@1992 rd fpfdRlk vodk’k O;rhr djus ds Ik’pkr fnukad 04@05@1992 dks viuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj jgk gWwA 6 tcfd buds }kjk fnukad 21@02@1992 ls 18@05@1992 rd dk fpfdRlk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA mDr fcUnq ds lEcU/k esa Jh eksgu flag oekZ us vius Li"Vhdj.k esa Li"V fd;k gS fd fnukad 04@05@1992 Hkwyo’k fnukad 04@06@1992 ds LFkku ij fnukad fy[krs le; fy[kk x;k gSA yEch vLoLFkrk o vkfFkZd dfBukbZ;ksa ls dkQh nq[kh FkkA blh dkj.k ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd iz’kklfud vf/kdkjh ds le{k fnukad 04@06@1992 dks izkr% mifLFkr gksdj viuh dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh vk[;k nh Fkh ftl ij Hkwyo’k fnukad 04@06@92 ds LFkku ij fnukad 04@05@1992 fy[kk x;k gS (Li"Vhdj.k irkdk&2) A iz’uxr fo"k; esa lgk;d dkfeZd vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 27@11@2000 dh tkap dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku iz’u fd;k x;k fd Jh oekZ th vkids }kjk fpfdRlk&de&LoLFkrk izek.k i= fnukad 21@02@1992 ls 18@05@1992 rd dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd vkids }kjk viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k esa fnukad 04@05@92 mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vki fnukad 21@02@1992 ls fnukad 18@05@1992 rd vLoLFk Fks rks fnukad 04@05@1992 dks dSls dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj ldrs gSA bl iz’ku dk Jh oekZ }kjk mRrj fn;k x;k fd fnukad 04@05@1992 dks esjs }kjk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus gsrq mifLFkr gksuk ,d =qfV ek= gSA Hkwyo’k fnukad 04@06@1992 ds LFkku ij fnukad 04@05@1992 fy[kk x;k FkkA ;g vLoLFkrk ds dkj.k Hkwyo’k fnukad fy[kus esa =qfV gqbZ gS D;ksafd bl chp yEch vLoLFkrk ,oa vkfFkZd dfBukbZ;ksa ls dkQh nq[kh FkkA lgk;d dkfeZd vf/kdkjh }kjk iqu% iz’u fd;k x;k fd Jh oekZ th] vkids }kjk fnukad 05@06@1992 dks izcU/k funs’kd egksn; dks izLrqr fd;s x;s i= esa Hkh fnukad 04@05@1992 dk gh mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ;fn =qfV Fkh rks bl i= esa Hkh fnukad 7 21@02@1992 ls fnukad 03@05@1992 rd dk gh fpfdRlk vodk’k ,oa fnukad 04@05@1992 ls dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dks D;ksa fy[kk x;kA Jh oekZ th ds }kjk mRrj fn;k x;k fd yEch vLoLFkrk ds dkj.k cgqr isj’kku FkkA bl dkj.k fnukad fy[kus ds Hkwy gks x;hA bls ekuoh; =qfV le> dj {kek djsa vkSj fnukad 04@05@1992 ds LFkku ij fnukad 04@06@1992 i<+k tk;sA” After considering the explanation/reply to the show cause notice on the point of punishment, the following orders are passed, which are part of impugned order dated 23.06.2002:- “1- pwWfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa visf{kr vodk’k ds lEcU/k esa ;g vis{kk dh gS fd deZpkjh }kjk vkosfnr vodk’k dks fu;ekuqlkj Lohd`r djus ij fopkj fd;k tk;A blfy, Jh oekZ dks i= la[;k mizcht,oarfofu@2982 fnukad 18-02-2002 ds ek/;e ls ;g funsZ’k fn;s x;s fd og vius fpfdRlk izek.k&i= dks eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] eFkqjk ls izfrgLrk{kfjr djk;sa ftlls mls Lohd`r djus ds fy, vkSipkfjd vk/kkj rS;kj gksA Jh oekZ }kjk eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] eFkqjk ls izfrgLrk{kfjr fpfdRlk izek.k i= miyC/k djk fn;k x;k gS blfy, muds [kkrs esa miyC/k 39 fnuksa ds fpfdRlk vodk’k dks Lohd`r djus gsrq funs’kd e.My ds le{k izLrko fopkjkFkZ izLrqr djus dh Lohd`rh nh tkrh gSA ;fn funs’kd e.My bl izLrko dks vuqeksfnr djrk gS rks Jh oekZ dks 39 fnukas dk fpfdRlk vodk’k Lohd`r fd;k tk;sxkA 8 2- Jh oekZ ds [kkrs esa 45 fnuksa dk mikftZr vodk’k miyC/k gS ftls fpfdRlk vk/kkj ij fnukad 1-4-92 ls 15- 5-92 rd dh vof/k ds fy, Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 3- Jh oekZ }kjk fnukad 16-5-92 ls 18-5-92 (LoLFk ?kksf"kr gksus dh frfFk rd) dk vlk/kkj.k voSrfud vodk’k Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 4- fnukad 19-5-92 ls fnukad 3-6-92 (ftl fnu Jh oekZ vius dk;ZLFky ij mifLFkr gq,) rd 16 fnu dh vof/k dks vukf/kd`r :Ik ls viuqifLFkr ekurs gq, mUgsa LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj bl vof/k dk u rks mudks dksbZ osru ns; gksxk vkSj u gh ;g vof/k Jh oekZ ds lsok vfHkys[kksa esa lsok vof/k ekuh tk;sxhA 5- fnukad 4-6-92 ls fnukad 19-6-92 (lsok lekfIr dh frfFk) rd Jh oekZ dks mifLFkr ekurs gq, bl vof/k dks vlk/kkj.k vodk’k ds :Ik esa Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 6- Jh oekZ fuxe }kjk lsok lekfIr vkns’k la[;k mizcht,oarfofu@iz-fu-@50 fnukad 19-6-92 ds QyLo:Ik fnukad 23-7-2000 dks mifLFkr gq,A bl vof/k 19-6-92 ls 23-7-2000 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ifjis{; esa osru dks NksM+dj vU; iz;kstu ds fy, lsok vof/k ekuk tk;sxkA Jh oekZ dks bl vof/k dk dksbZ osru ns; ugha gksxkA 7- pwWfd Jh oekZ ds Åij yxk;s x;s lHkh vkjksi iwoZ tkWp esa vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vuqikyu esa xfBr nqckjk tkWp esa iw.kZ :is.k fl) ik;s x;s gSa blfy, muds ekeys esa fdlh izdkj dh lgkuqHkwfr dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA ekeys ds xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij Jh oekZ dks lsok ls eqDr fd;s x;s iwoZ vkns’k ds vuqlkj gh n.M 9 feyuk pkfg,A ijUrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’kksa dk lEeku djrs gq, lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fu.kZ; ysrs gq, mUgsa fnukad 24-7-2000 dks vius orZeku in ds ewy osru ij izR;kofrZr djrs gq, cgkyh ds vkns’k fuxZr fd;s tkrs gSA (,0 D;w0 vyok)” 7. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error of law in the impugned order, passed by respondent No. 2 in reverting the petitioner to the original pay scale, as such, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, requires no interference in its writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:12.03.2010 Sweta 10