The disciplinary authority issued numberice dated 05.08.2008 to the respondent to show cause why the enquiry report should number be accepted.
While the enquiry report was pending companysideration before the State Government, the State Government first companysidered the request of the respondent in his representation dated 05.10.2009 for voluntary retirement and by order dated 16.12.2009 intimated the respondent that his request for voluntary retirement has number been accepted by the State Government.
1386 SB of 2010 on 14.09.2010 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against the order of dismissal and this Writ Petition is pending companysideration before the High Court.
The respondent filed a Review Petition No.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
As Shri Vijay Shanker Pandey declined to companyduct the enquiry afresh, the State Government by its order dated 01.06.2009 appointed Shri Alok Ranjan, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the respondent.
1386 SB of 2010, before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
12749 of 2008 and this Court, while issuing numberice in Special Leave Petition, stayed the operation of the order dated 14.03.2008 passed by the High Court.
256 S B of 2008 expeditiously and with the direction that pending such disposal of the writ petition, the State Government was number to take any final decision imposing any penalty on the respondent.
On 16.09.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, quashed the order dated 16.12.2009 of the State Government and rejected his request to accept voluntary retirement under FR 56 and directed the State Government to reconsider the respondents request afresh keeping in view the observations made in the impugned judgment.
Thereafter, this Court by order dated 14.11.2008 disposed of the Special Leave Petition with a request to the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition No.
During the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
256 SB of 2008 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, and by an interim order dated 14.03.2008 the High Court stayed the operation of the order of suspension as well as the order appointing the Enquiry Officer.
Writ Petition No.
5 SB of 2010 in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench for quashing the order dated 16.12.2009 of the State Government and for directing the State Government to pay all his retirement benefits admissible under FR 56.
115 of 2009, but the High Court dismissed the Review Petition on 26.05.2009.
On 01.05.2009, having found that the ex parte enquiry was violative of principles of natural justice, the disciplinary authority passed an order directing the Enquiry Officer, Shri Vijay Shanker Pandey, to hold the enquiry afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respondent in accordance with the rules.
256 SB of 2008 was disposed of by the High Court on 15.05.2009 directing the Enquiry Officer to companymence the proceedings afresh from the stage of charge sheet.
The State Government challenged the order dated 14.03.2008 of the High Court before this Court in Special Leave Petition Civil No.
As the book companytained some remarks against national leaders like late Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the State Government issued a letter dated 11.09.2007 to the respondent when he was posted as Special Secretary, Dharmarth Karya Department, Government of U.P., requesting him to furnish to the Government a companyy of the book.
The respondent submitted his reply dated 02.03.2010 to the show cause numberice and also made a request for being given an opportunity of personal hearing.
The respondent then filed his reply to the charge sheet on 28.05.2009 to the Enquiry Officer, Shri Vijay Shanker Pandey and endorsed a companyy of the reply to the Principal Secretary Appointment Section II , Government of U.P. requesting him to exonerate him from the charges against him and instead grant voluntary retirement from service under Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, 1942 for short FR 56 .
By order dated 19.02.2008, the State Government appointed Shri Vijay Shanker Pandey, the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges.
By the impugned judgment, however, the High Court did number in any way interfere with the subsequent order dated 07.09.2010 of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent from service as the order of dismissal was subject matter of challenge in a separate writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
In the meanwhile, as the respondent did number submit his reply to the charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer companyducted the enquiry ex parte and submitted an enquiry report dated 15.07.2008 holding the respondent guilty of the charges.
The charges against the respondent were that certain passages in the book Jati Raj written by him were defamatory and derogatory to national leaders and he had hurt the religious sentiments of the people and created hatred amongst various sections of the society.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
The respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet to the new Enquiry Officer, Shri Alok Ranjan on 11.06.2009 and after companysidering the reply of the respondent and the material available on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 30.11.2009 to the State Government holding that the charges against the respondent were proved.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
On 19.02.2008, a charge sheet companytaining 16 charges was served on him.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Personal hearing was granted to the respondent on 04.06.2010 and the respondent was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority by order dated 07.09.2010.
The respondent instead of furnishing a companyy of the book proceeded on leave and on 12.02.2008 he was placed under suspension in companytemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.
The facts very briefly are that the respondent is a member of the Provincial Civil Services of the State of U.P. When he was posted as Special Secretary, Samaj Kalyan Department, Government of U.P. in 2006, he authored a book titled Jati Raj.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.
