Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 365 (ALL)

VIJAI KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2000-03-01

D.R.CHAUDHARY, M.KATJU

body2000
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 8. 2. 1994 Annexure-4a to the writ petition (as amended) and for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion as Superintending Engineer. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Rural Engineering Service, of U. P. Government in ad hoc capacity on 18. 10. 1972 and he was approved by the U. P. Public Service commission on 11. 5. 1979. On 23. 1. 1980 the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis and was regularised in April. 1980 and in between he was confirmed as Assistant engineer on 2. 7. 1982. ( 3 ) IN paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is sated that in the year 1985-86 a routine audit of the public accounts maintained by the department was conducted and the audit team raised an objection under the head extra expenditure for the year 1985-86. A purchase from the U. P. Small Industries Corporation at their rate list was termed by the audit cell as superfluous and extra expenditure to a tune of Rs. 74. 944 was indicated in the total purchase of the material worth Rs. 1,15,200. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that the Chief Engineer when informed about the same immediately reacted and replied to the objection raised by the audit team through his letter dated 23. 1. 1987 through the Joint Secretary of the department. The Joint secretary after satisfying himself with the reply of the respondent No. 2 forwarded the detailed reply of the Chief Engineer with his sanction in favour of the same to the Accountant General. Allahabad on 23. 2. 1987, True copy of the letter dated 23. 2. 1987 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Despite this reply the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide covering letter dated 3. 11. 1989. True copy of the covering letter containing the letter of the Joint Secretary dated 7. 9. 1988 and the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet dated 15. 12. 1989. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the order of punishment dated 8. 2. 1994 by the State Government by which recovery of Rs. 9. 1988 and the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet dated 15. 12. 1989. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the order of punishment dated 8. 2. 1994 by the State Government by which recovery of Rs. 74,994 was ordered from the salary of the petitioner besides permanently withholding of one increment and a reprimand entry. True copy of the order is Annexure-4a to the writ petition. ( 4 ) IN paragraph 14b of the petition it is stated that the aforesaid order was arbitrary as it was contrary to the letters copies of which are Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. The entire controversy related to the alleged misuse of public money by extra expenditure said to have been incurred by the petitioner when the material alleged to have been bought was through the public agency, U. P. Small Industries Corporation, a public sector undertaking regarding which there existed guidelines recommending purchase of material from the Corporation alone of the goods available with the Corporation. Moreover, the entire purchase made from the Corporation by the petitioner was with the prior approval of the Chief Engineer. ( 5 ) IN paragraph 14c of the writ petition, it is alleged that the State Government did not even care to look to its own recommendation made to the Accountant General justifying need of the purchase, which had been approved by the Chief Engineer. As a result of this the petitioner was not promoted while eight of his colleagues were promoted as Superintending Engineer. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. In paragraph 3 of the same, it is alleged that the petitioner while posted as Executive Engineer in 1982-83 made certain purchases in which he committed irregularities and had paid higher rates than the scheduled rates. The same allegation has been made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) A rejoinder-affidavit has bean filed. In paragraph 5 of the same, it is stated the purchases were made after getting approval/sanction of the Chief Engineer on 9. 7. 1982 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition and these purchases were made only from U. P. Small Industries Corporation limited, a public sector undertaking as per mandatory provision of G. O. dated 30. 11. In paragraph 5 of the same, it is stated the purchases were made after getting approval/sanction of the Chief Engineer on 9. 7. 1982 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition and these purchases were made only from U. P. Small Industries Corporation limited, a public sector undertaking as per mandatory provision of G. O. dated 30. 11. 1981, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition and hence there was no question of any Irregularity of paying at a higher rate. The same allegation has been made in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit and it is stated that no irregularity was committed. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the G. O. dated 30. 11. 1981 specifically provides that the required materials must be purchased only from U. P. Small Industries Corporation Limited and only the rates of the corporation be defrayed. Hence no question arose for departmental approval of the rates. Moreover sanction from the Chief Engineer was also taken by the petitioner. ( 8 ) ON the facts of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. It is evident that the petitioner made purchases only from the U. P. Small Industries corporation Limited at the rate fixed by the Corporation itself and that too after taking approval from the Chief Engineer. Moreover the Chief Engineer had himself Informed the Accountant general by his letter dated 23. 2. 1987 through the Joint Secretary about these purchases. Copies of the letters of the Chief Engineer as well as the Joint Secretary to the Government are annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. True copy of the sanction of the Chief Engineer is annexure-3 to the writ petition. The G. O. dated 30. 11. 1981 states that the purchase can be made from the U. P. Small Industries Corporation only at the rate notified by it. Hence we fall to understand how the petitioner can be at any fault. It appears that the entire action against the petitioner was misconceived and arbitrary. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The Impugned order of punishment dated 8. 2. Hence we fall to understand how the petitioner can be at any fault. It appears that the entire action against the petitioner was misconceived and arbitrary. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The Impugned order of punishment dated 8. 2. 1994 is quashed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion as Superintending Engineer preferably within the months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned in accordance with law. .