Judgment:
Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, a removed employee of Lucknow University, who is present in person. Sri I. B. Singh, learned standing counsel for Lucknow University has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties and put forth his version.
2. Under challenge is an order of removal passed on 30.11.2006 by the Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner to inquire into an incident which took place in the office of Registrar, Sri K.N. Pandey, Lucknow on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. It was alleged that Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, entered the office of Registrar on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. He was hurling abuses and asking for attendance register. He misbehaved with Dr. K.N. Pandey, Registrar of Lucknow University, in the presence of Sri H.K. Gupta Superintendent. It has been alleged that Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, had brought a plastic bottle containing petrol mixed with kerosene oil. He threw it on Dr. K.N. Pandey. After this he tried to ignite Match Box to put Dr. K.N. Pandey and himself in flames. However, on intervention of the persons present, both the above persons were saved. A preliminary enquiry was setup by the Vice Chancellor, Dr. A.N. Singh, proctor was appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry who had submitted his report to the Vice Chancellor. After going through the contents of the preliminary enquiry report a decision was taken to hold a formal regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. He was put under suspension vide order dated 11.5.2006. Charge sheet was issued against him on 13.7.2006, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. This charge-sheet contains the subject-matter of accusation against the petitioner and the evidence cited in support of the charges. Six documents were referred to in the charge- sheet, which were to be used against the petitioner.
3. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6937 (S/S) of 2006, Sri Sanjay Shankar Manwal v. Lucknow University, Lucknow and Ors. This writ petition was finally disposed of by passing the following order:
Hon. Shri Narayan Shukla, J.
Heard Mr. Alok Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Chandra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th May, 2006, passed by the Registrar of Lucknow University where by the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the charges mentioned therein.
The petitioner has already been served the charge-sheet on 17th July, 2006 and he submitted the reply of the same on 27th July, 2006, on the date fixed, i.e., 4th August, 2006 the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer. On that date the proceedings could not take place and according to him no other date was fixed in the matter and he submits that the respondents are lingering on the matter which results to keep him under suspension for the long period which cannot be permitted by his Court.
Under the circumstances with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. I hareby dispose of the writ petition finally with the direction to the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, who shall submit the report to the disciplinary authority within next one week and disciplinary authority shall take final decision in the matter after providing opporutnity to the petitioner if the same is required under the law within next two weeks. Thus, the whole inquiry shall be completed as per schedule provided herein if the respondents fail to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period as has been stated here-in-above, the suspension order dated 11th May, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) staff stand revoked. However, it would be open for the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry and complete the same expeditiously.
The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the inquiry can only be completed within stipulated period if the petitioner cooperates with the Inquiry Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of instructions undertakes to cooperate with the Inquiry Officer and he shall not take any adjournment unnecessarily without any cogent reason.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not being paid subsistence allowance which he shall approach to the authority concerned who shall consider his request and pay the same.
4. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 26.7.2006 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, it is borne out from the record that the enquiry was conducted on various dates. It appears from record that various dates were fixed for holding enquiry between 27.7.2006 to 13.9.2006. Witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the petitioner. This Court has also seen that the petitioner had produced two defence witnesses and Sri Jag Mohan, Sri Jay Shanker Pandey in support of his case. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted report on 13.9.2006. A copy of the enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
5. It is noteworthy that in the present case the departmental enquiry has been conducted by Sri Nanak Chand Harit, a retired District Judge. After receiving enquiry officer's report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.9.2006 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 4.10.2006. After going through the replies submitted made by the petitioner, the delinquent employee, final order of penalty, i.e., removal from services was passed against him by the appointing authority, i.e., Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow.
6. The petitioner has assailed the order of removal on various grounds like Dr. K.N. Pandey, Registrar of Lucknow University it bore malice. He was inimical towards him and wanted to kill him. The petrol kerosene mixture was available in the room for the purpose of throwing it on the petitioner by the Registrar. The Registrar had thrown this mixture on the petitioner. Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, petitioner has submitted that none of the witnesses had submitted before the enquiry officer that the petrol kerosene mixture was thrown by the petitioner. In fact, all the witnesses had deposed that they did not see the incident which took place on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. in the office of the Registrar at Lucknow University, campus. The petitioner has been implicated in this case, he was innocent. The witnesses of the prosecution were interested as they belong to Registrar's office.
7. Petitioner, Sanjay Shanker Manwal, has further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him. The petitioner's defence version was not taken into account and dealt with by the enquiry officer and the punishing authority. The order of punishment was illegal, unjust and improper. The departmental enquiry was not conducted in proper manner. The petitioner has also approached the Vice-Chancellor by submitting a representation but the same was not received. The office of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, has declined to accept the representation. The order of penalty, removal from services has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not a members of teaching staff. He was a ministerial employee working as Senior Assistant.
8. Sri I.B. Singh, learned standing counsel for Lucknow University had resisted the writ petition. He has given the chronology of events, which took place during the departmental trial. According to him, the departmental enquiry was held in accordance with relevant service rules. Proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner. The whole charges were found proved. The petitioner had committed serious misconduct, which culminated in his removal from services. All the witnesses were produced before the petitioner for his cross-examination and the petitioner was also allowed opportunity cross-examine the witnesses. The medical report also proved the version of the University authorities.
9. I have heard Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal at length. Since he has appeared in person, the Court has given him full opportunity to make his submissions and place the facts in his own way. The Court has also allowed him to put forth his rejoinder to the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the University. In rejoinder-affidavit petitioner has reiterated his earlier stand. He laid stress that he was innocent of charges and a false story was cooked up against him due to inimical attitude of Sri Pandey.
10. I have gone through the contents of writ petition, subject-matter of accusation contained in the charge-sheet and the reply submitted by the petitioner on 26.7.2006. I have also gone through the statements of witnesses and cross-examination done by the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the statements of the defence witnesses produced before the enquiry officer. I have also perused the show cause notices and the enquiry officer findings.
11. Here is a case where a formal regular departmental enquiry has been conducted by Sri Nanak Chand Harit, a retired District Judge. The enquiry officer's report runs in 18 pages. The enquiry officer has dealt with the case of the prosecution, i.e., University and the version of the petitioner, the delinquent employee. He has also appreciated the statements of the witnesses who had deposed before the enquiry officer were cross-examined by the concerned parties. The enquiry officer after appreciating the material on record has come to the following conclusion:
cpko i{k ds mijksDr izfr dFku ls ;g rF; fufoZokn gks tkrk gS fd fnukad 9-5-2006 dks iwokZUg esa yxHkx 11-30 cts y[ku fo'ofo|ky; y[ku ds dqylfpo Mk0 dSyk'k ukFk ik.Ms ds d{k esa feV~Vh dk rsy Mkydj ftUnk tyk;s tkus dh ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ A vc dsoy ;g fl) djuk 'ks'k jg tkrk gS fd ml fnu isVksy vipkjh deZpkjh Jh lat; 'kadj euoky us gh vius gh mPpre vf/kdkjh dqylfpo Mk0 ik.Ms dks tku ls ekjus dh iz;Ru esa mu ij Qsadk rFkk Loa; Hkh isVksy ykdj vkRenkg djus dk iz;kl fd;k A
i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd okLro esa ml fnu dqylfpo ds d{k es vipkjh deZpkjh Jh euoky }kjk dqylfpo Jh dSyk'k ukFk ik.Ms dks tykdj ekjus ds iz;kl esa feV~Vh dk rsy fefJr isVksy Mkydj vkRenkg djus dk iz;Ru fd;k Fkk A esjh bl fu'd'kZ fuEufyf[kr vk/kkj o lk{; bl tkap i=koyh ij miyC/k gS A
12. The enquiry officer has also placed reliance on Medical Report dated 9.5.2006. The medical examination of Dr. K. N. Pandey was done immediately the same day, i.e., on 9.5.2006 after the incident. The Medical Report of Dr. Pandey, it was found that smell of the petroleum and kerosene mixture was coming out of his clothes, and the same was also found on his body. The relevant excerpt of the report is an under:
ftlls fl) gksrk gS fd Mk0 ik.Ms ds vka[k esa feV~Vh dk rsy fefJr] feJ.k fxjk Fkk] vka[k mudh yky Fkh feV~Vh ds rsy dh cncw muds diM+ks ls vk jgh Fkh rFkk 'kjhj ij Hkh feV~Vh dk rsy Hkh fn[kkbZ ns jgk Fkk A bl fpfdRlk lk{; ds lEcU/k esa ;g fl) gks tkrk gS fd Jh euoky }kjk gh o muds ij feV~Vh dk rsy fefJr] isVksy muds mij Qasdk Fkk A
13. The enquiry officer has further dealt with the statements of the witnesses. The enquiry officer finally opined that the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal, was guilty of serious misconduct committed on 9.5.2006 in the room of Dr. K.N. Pandey, Registrar of Lucknow University. He has hurled filthy abuses on the Registrar in the presence of Sri H.K. Gupta, Superintendent. The enquiry officer had also found on the basis of evidence and material on record that the petroleum kerosene mixture was brought by Sri Sanjay Shanker Manwal in the room of Registrar and he threw the same on Dr. K.N. Pandey. It was proved that petroleum kerosene mixture entered in the eyes of Dr. K.N. Pandey. The enquiry officer has placed reliance on various decisions of Supreme Court of India as in R.T.C. and Black R.T.C. v. A.T. Mane : (2004)IIILLJ1074SC , Mahlndra and Mahindra v. N.B. Naravade : (2005)ILLJ1129SC , Muriadhi Kalori v. Bihar Kalori Kamgar Union (2005) 2 SCC 331 and Employees Union v. Christian Medical College : (1988)ILLJ263SC . In support of his findings regarding gravity of the charges he had recommended that severe punishment should be awarded against the petitioner and he was unfit unsuitable for further retention in services of the Lucknow University. Acting on the recommendation of the enquiry officer the Vice-Chancellor issued a show cause notice. The enquiry officer's report was also made available to the petitioner to enable him to make his comments. After going through the reply to the show cause notice and other documents, the Vice-Chancellor has issued the order of removal. I find no irregularity illegality or infirmity in the decision making process. Since the charges were serious in nature and the same were found proved against the petitioner, he was rightly removed from services.
14. The order of removal was an appropriate penalty awarded against the petitioner in the light of the observations made by Hon. Supreme Court of India in the decisions quoted above.
15. I find no illegality or infirmity in the departmental enquiry and the order of removal passed on 30.11.2006. The order is just and proper.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.