Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1281 (ALL)

RAVINDRA NATH BANERJEE v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1999-08-25

D.R.CHAUDHARY, M.KATJU

body1999
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06. 03. 97 (Annexure-3 to the petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondents ro release the gratuity with interest and full pension of the petitioner. I have heard Sri T. P. Singh and Sri Ashok Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner retired on 31. 07. 91 as Associate District inspector of School, Fatehpur. From 27. 08. 1985 to 30. 5. 87 the petitioner worked as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad and thereafter he was transferred out of Allahabad. A charge sheet dated 26. 08. 87 was issued to him regarding certain allegations during his tenure as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad. True copy of the charge sheet is Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 12. 05. 88. it is alleged that thereafter the petitioner was not given opportunity to produce his evidence nor cross-examine the witnesses against him. After his retirement he was not paid his gratuity but was paid only provisional pension. The petitioner filed writ petition no. 24969 of 1994 in this court in which an order was passed directing the enquiry to be completed within three weeks. Thereafter notice dated 05. 05. 94 was issued to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report. True copy of the letter dated 05. 05. 94 has been annexed as Annesure-2 to the petition. Thereafter the impugned order dated 06. 03. 97 was passed reducing the petitioners pension to 50% and withholding the entire gratuity amount. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court. ( 3 ) THE order dated 06. 03. 1997 is based on the allegations against the petitioner on charges no. 5,6, and 11. As regard the other charges it has been stated in the enquiry report dated 14. 10. 1992 that no financial loss was caused to the State Govt. on these charges. Charge no. 5 related to appointment of some Sanskrit teacher made by the petitioner on 24. 01. 86 in certain Basic School in urban areas whereas it is alleged that the post had been allotted for the rural areas in view of the order of the Director of Education (Basic) passed on 27. 01. 86. These appointments were ordered to be cancelled by the Regional asstt. 01. 86 in certain Basic School in urban areas whereas it is alleged that the post had been allotted for the rural areas in view of the order of the Director of Education (Basic) passed on 27. 01. 86. These appointments were ordered to be cancelled by the Regional asstt. Director of Education ( Basic), Alld. Vide order dated 04. 08. 86. Writ petitions were filed by the Sanskrit teachers who were appointed by the petitioner and interim orders were passed by the high Court on the strength of which these teachers are still continuing in service and are being paid salary by the State Govt. Thus it is evident that the said teachers are being paid salary on account of interim orders of the High Court and hence it cannot be said that financial loss was caused to the Govt. by the petitioner. Moreover there is no allegation in the impugned order that the petitioner obtained any benefit in making such appointments or that they were made malafide. In fact the order of the Director of educaiton (Basic) to the effect that appointment will be made in rural areas was passed after the petitioner had made the appointments, and hence the petitioner cannot be blamed for this. As regard charge no. 6 which related to appointment of Urdu teachers such appointments were cancelled subsequently, but against the cancellation order the teachers filed writ petition no. 11730 of 1986 Kishwar Sultan and others v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari. and an interim order was passed as follows: "till further order of the Court, operation of the order dated 26. 06. 86 passed by Basic Sshiksha Adhikari. shall remain stayed. Petitioner shall be entitled of their salary. " This interim order is still continuing and the teachers are getting salary pursuant to the above order. Here also it has to be said that the salaries are being paid to the Urdu teachers in pursuance of the interim order of this court and hence obviously the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. Moreover salaries are being paid for the work done by the teachers. ( 4 ) AS regard charge no. 11 the allegation is that the petitioner paid city Compensatory Allowance to the employees of the Basic shiksha Parishad which was not admissible to them. Moreover salaries are being paid for the work done by the teachers. ( 4 ) AS regard charge no. 11 the allegation is that the petitioner paid city Compensatory Allowance to the employees of the Basic shiksha Parishad which was not admissible to them. In this connection it is mentioned in paragraph 22 of the writ petition that the quesiton regarding payment of CCA is pending before the High court in writ Petition no. 1430 of 1984. In fact the CCA was being paid to those employees since before joining of the petitioner as basic Shiksha Adikari. Hence it is not the petitioner who has for the first time started paying CCA to the members. The amount paid to such employees in Rs. 6607/= only. If the employees are not entitled to the said allowance the same can be adjusted from their salary or other dues. ( 5 ) IN paragraph 25 of the petition it is alleged that some letter dated 13. 05. 92 was written to the Enquiry Officer Sri Hari Prasad pandey to submit further report with regard to the alleged financial loss. It is alleged in paragraph 25 of the petition that no opportunity was given to the petitioner with regard to the details required by letter dated 13. 05. 92 and neither the State Govt. nor the Enquiry officer gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before submitting the additional report dated 14. 10. 92. The petitioner has alleged that no notice under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service regulation was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry report was submitted after due participation of the petitioner in the enquiry. It is alleged in paragraph 28 of the petition that the report dated 14. 10. 92 was exparte and without notice to the petitioner. In paragraph 29 of the petition it is alleged that the finding in the impugned order that the petitioner caused financial loss of Rs. 562982/= to the State Govt. is incorrect and unfounded. ( 6 ) IN paragraph 32 of the writ petition it is alleged that as regards charge no. 1 the only allegation is that the petitioner filled up the post of Assistant. Teachers in Primary institution without approval of the District. Selection Committee, and the petitioner has not fulfilled the quota reserved for the reserve candidates. is incorrect and unfounded. ( 6 ) IN paragraph 32 of the writ petition it is alleged that as regards charge no. 1 the only allegation is that the petitioner filled up the post of Assistant. Teachers in Primary institution without approval of the District. Selection Committee, and the petitioner has not fulfilled the quota reserved for the reserve candidates. The petitioners reply was that he made appointment after approval from the selection committee and the quota of the reserved category was carried forward. As regard charge no. 2 the petitioner has stated that he made appointments on the basis of the addresses given by the candidated to the department in their application, and the petitioner did not made appointment to any person outside the district. As regards charge no. 3 the petitioner has alleged in para 34 that the selection Committee itself included the names in the selection list and petitioner had only followed the recommendation of the selection committee. As regard charge no 4 it is alleged in para 35 that actions done by the petitioner in posting of the employees and teachers was in accordance with exigencies of administration. Similarly the petitioner has given reply to other charges in paragraph 36 to 41 of the writ petition. ( 7 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 44 of the writ petition that the petitioner is now more than 64 years of age. In paragraph 45 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner has an unemployed son to support. Due to the impugned order the petitioner cannot make two ends meet. A counter affidavit has been filed. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter submitted his enquiry report on 16. 12. 92. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that while working as Distt. Basic Education officer Addl. the petitioner committed grave financial irregularities and hence an enquiry was instituted. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has caused grave financial loss to the State govt. and the charge have been found to be proved in the enquiry. In paragraph 14 of the same it is stated that the petitioner made several irregular appointments of Sanskrit Teachers. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has caused grave financial loss to the State govt. and the charge have been found to be proved in the enquiry. In paragraph 14 of the same it is stated that the petitioner made several irregular appointments of Sanskrit Teachers. In paragraph 15 of the same it is stated that petitioner made 20 illegal and irregular appointment of Urdu Teachers and most of them were not have requisite minimum qualification. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and we have perused the same. ( 8 ) IN our opinion the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The main charges against the petitioner are regarding making irregular appointments of Sanskrit and Urdu Teachers. As already mentioned above these appointments were later on cancelled but the high Court granted interim orders in writ petitions and payments of such teachers are being made in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner has caused financial loss to the Govt. As regards the allegation that the Sanskrit teachers should have been appointed in rural areas the petitioner has pointed out that the order for posting these person in rural areas was issued after the petitioner had made appointments. Hence the petitioner can hardly be blamed for the same. On the fact and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06. 03. 97 depriving the petitioner of his gratuity and half of his pension is arbitrary and illegal. .