High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15144 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sneh Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the notices issued to the petitioner dated 13.01.2022 and 31.01.2022 along with enquiry report dated 31.12.2021, which have been brought on record as Annexure No.14 and 15 respectively. A further direction has been sought in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to conduct the enquiry after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided under the relevant Rules. The issue before this Court is limited one. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant in the Treasury Department in the year 1985 and had joined in service in District Gorakhpur. He was later promoted on the post of Senior Accountant in the year 1987. Later again, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Treasury Officer in the year 2011 and again as Treasury Officer in the year 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was again promoted as Treasury Officer and posted at Gorakhpur itself and he was posted as a Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the B.S.A., by means of the order dated 30.06.2017, where he had taken charge on 06.07.2017. It has further been pointed that while the petitioner was appointed as a Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of the B.S.A.,, he had to perform his duties relating to the account of Office of the B.S.A., particularly to release the salary to the teachers and other staff of the employees appointed under Basic Shiksha Parishad mainly Primary School and Junior High School and also aided institution run and established by the Management including the staff of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The dispute in respect of the instant petition arose when the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 10.10.2021. A copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, it would indicate that the charge is that the STF had lodged an FIR in Kotwali Deoria as Case Crime No.378/2021 with respect to the release of the salary of four teachers in Krishak Lagu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madarshan, District Deoria. The copy of the said FIR has been brought on record as Annexure No.3. The aforesaid FIR was assailed by the petitioner by filing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.6779/2021 and the arrest of the petitioner was stayed by means of the order dated 27.08.2021. It has also been pointed out that while the charge with respect to the four teachers of Krishak Lagu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Madarshan, District Deoria but the vision as per the FIR was that the payment was made by the co-accused Raees Ahmad, who was posted as Finance and Accounts Officer though he was put under suspension and was reinstated in service without completion of enquiry in light of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.17588/2021 filed by Raees Ahmad. The petitioner also assailed his suspension order by means of filing a Writ Petition No.14869/2021, which was dismissed. The special appeal against the same was also dismissed. In the meantime, the petitioner was arrested on 23.10.2021 in pursuance of the FIR lodged against unknown person bearing Case Crime No.403/2021 dated 19.07.2021. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 08.08.2022 and the petitioner was finally released from the custody on 17.08.2022. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the enquiry which took place behind the back of the petitioner while he was in custody, the enquiry report was served upon him in the custody and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the notices issued to the petitioner dated 13.01.2022 and 31.01.2022 as well as the enquiry report dated 31.12.2021 as the petitioner had prayed that some time may be given to him to enable him to file his defense after he is released from custody, which was not considered or granted. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that though the petitioner was in custody, he had no means to submit his defence or to defend the charges which were leveled against him. The enquiry which has been carried out by the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and in the aforesaid backdrop, the enquiry is void and is liable to be set aside. Learned standing counsel, on the basis of the written instructions, a copy of which has been provided to the Court and is taken on record, it is submitted that the petitioner was served with the notice on 08.12.2021 and he was also required to furnish his reply, but since the reply could not be furnished, accordingly, the enquiry report was served on 31.12.2021 and all the six charges with which the petitioner was charged were found to be proved. Noticing the aforesaid undisputed facts, the issue is that at the relevant time when the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, he was admittedly was in custody. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to defend the charges especially when the petitioner was in custody. Even the enquiry report, which was provided to the petitioner was also during the period while the petitioner was in custody. It is also stated in the said written instructions that the petitioner was released from the custody on 17.08.2022. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is amply clear that no opportunity of hearing worth its name was granted to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the enquiry report dated 31.12.2021, which is in pursuance of the two enquiries which were instituted against the petitioner, copies of which are on record as Annexure No.14 and 15 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by allowing him to file his defense and evidence. Needless to say that the petitioner shall also cooperate in early hearing and an endeavour be made to conclude the enquiry by passing a speaking and reasoned order preferably within a period of three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. It shall be open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application seeking revocation of his suspension. In case, if such an application is moved, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in its own merit leaving it open to the respondents-authorities to take a decision in accordance with law.
Decision
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad