Case: RAMESH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ANR

1. The appellant was posted as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti in January 2003. The appellant was the In-charge District Basic Education Officer Gorakhpur, when he issued appointment letters to 400 candidates holding B.Ed. degrees to the post of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools (Primary Schools) in District Gorakhpur, and 121 candidates in District Basti during April to June 20032. The State vide Office Order dated 24.07.2003 placed the appellant under suspension, and directed a disciplinary/departmental enquiry to be conducted under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The State appointed the Joint Director, Basic Education as the Enquiry OfficerThe Charge Sheet was filed on 21.08.2003 wherein it was alleged that the appointments of Assistant Teachers made by the appellant were irregular, as they were in violation of Rules 16 and 19(3) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 ( 1981 Rules)3. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 09.11.2003 denying the charges levelled against him. It was contended that the appointments were made by him in compliance with earlier orders passed by the High Court, and directions from senior functionaries4. The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.06.20045. The appellant challenged the order of suspension by way of W.P. (C) 52287/2005, wherein the High Court vide interim Order dated 28.07.2005 granted stay of the order of suspension6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Deputy Secretary, Basic Education Department vide Order dated 10.01.2006 proposed punishment of removal from serviceThe appellant challenged the Order dated 10.01.2006 by filing W.P. (C) No. 14083/2006, wherein vide interim order dated 08.03.2006, the High Court directed stay of the aforesaid Order of proposed punishment7. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Government decided to award major punishment of removal from service under the provisions of the U.P. Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and referred the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vide Government Order dated 17.10.2005. The U.P. Public Service Commission approved the punishment of service to the appellant vide letter dated 21.12.2006. The order of removal from service was passed by the Governor dated 21.04.20088. The appellant challenged the Order of Removal in W.P. (C) No. 28842/2008, wherein the High Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2008 directed that the operation, implementation and execution of the order of dismissed dated 21.04.2008 shall remain stayedSubsequent to the interim order, the State Government withdrew the proposed order of punishment on 19.05.2010As a consequence, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 25.05.2010 with the observation that the disciplinary proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 6 months. The appellant was directed to co-operate with the disciplinary proceedings9. The disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice along-with the enquiry reportThe appellant inter alia submitted that conditional appointments had been made against fixed pay scale pursuant to the orders of the court, and pressure from the government. All appointments made were declared void ab initio. The enquiry was conducted without affording any opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence through production of witnesses10. The disciplinary authority granted a personal hearing to the appellantThe disciplinary authority found all the charges proved against the appellant, and passed an order of removal from service on 27.06.201711. The appellant challenged the order dated 27.06.2017 by way of Writ A. No. 31098/2017 before the Allahabad High CourtThe High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2018 partly allowed the Writ PetitionThe High Court held that the enquiry officer had not recorded any finding as to whether the appellant was given a notice intimating the date, time and place of holding the oral enquiry. The appellant had expressly taken the plea that the enquiry officer had not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment overlooked the mandatory requirement of holding a valid enquiry by complying with the principles of natural justiceIn these circumstances, the High Court felt that it would not be appropriate to consider the contention of the appellant that the appointments were made in compliance with the order passed by High Court and pursuant to the directions of the higher authorities, since it would require appreciation of the evidence on recordThe High Court, however, rejected the contention that the enquiry officer was biased, as there was no material on record to reveal any element of bias on part of the enquiry officerThe Court rejected the contention of the appellant for parity with the case of K.C. Bharati who had been awarded a lesser punishment of withholding one increment for one year, and a censure entry in his service recordThe High Court concluded that since the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of dismissal from service dated 27.06.2017 was liable to be quashed. The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage of charge sheet. It was further directed that the appellant shall be treated under suspension, during the pendency of the enquiry and shall be paid subsistence allowance as per the RulesThe Court deprecated the casual and callous manner in which the disciplinary authorities had acted in conducting an enquiry into grave allegations of corruption of such a magnitude where hundreds of appointments were made by the appellant, without following the due process of law. A direction was issued to the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer with the approval of the Chief Minister, who should be apprised of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court vide Order 09.07.2018 issued notice on whether the appellant should be continued on suspension, and whether the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the Chief MinisterPursuant to the impugned judgment, the State granted sanction vide Office Memo dated 11.10.2018 to re-conduct the enquiry from the stage of the charge sheetBy a further order dated 31.10.2018, this Court ordered stay of the operation of the Office Memo dated 11.10.2018.

Reasoning: 16. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules reveals that the appellant as the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinaboveIt is the case of the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state, which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as mentioned in the appellants reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second show cause noticeThe plea of the appellant that the appointments were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries, would require to be considered in the enquiry.