JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Treasury Assistant (Sahayak Syaha Navis). He was confirmed on 15.1.1973 and thereafter is working as Treasury Accountant at Sub-Treasury, Banda. It is stated that two bill Nos. 245 and 246 amounting Rs. 4,106.20 paise and Rs. 3,872.55 respectively pertaining to consolidation department were allegedly encashed by some person. This act of alleged encashment was reported by Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo, Tehsildar, Banda. 3. The petitioner claimed to have been confined in the revenue lock up thereafter without any order and was forced to confess that he had encashed the bills but the amount has not been deposited. A complaint to this effect was made by the petitioner on his release from the revenue lock to the higher authorities i.e. District Superintendent of Police and District Collector, Banda. A F.I.R. was also lodged against the employees Sri Ram Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Sri Siya Ram Azad, Sri Yashin Ahmed and others who had procured the confession from the petitioner in the lock up under duress but it was not registered by the Police, hence the petitioner moved complaints in writing to the District Superintendent of Police and District Collector Banda dated 17.11.1980 and 25.11.1980 respectively. 4. He also filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned C.J.M. Banda against Sri Ram Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Sri Siya Ram Azad, Sri Yashin Ahmed, who were summoned vide order dated 6.8.1986 but subsequently the criminal complaint was dismissed as time barred. 5. The petitioner thereafter was suspended vide order dated 24.11.1980 which was revoked by order dated 22.6.1980. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 1.7.1981 to which he submitted his reply before the enquiry officer Dilip Sahai, S.D.O. on 20.7.1981. 6. It is stated that incomplete inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer who had repeatedly asked Sri Ram Kumar, the Naib Tehsildar to produce the order of confinement of the petitioner in the revenue lock up before him but it was never produced and the inquiry officer was subsequently changed deliberately with malafide intentions. In the circumstances, the inquiry report is said to have been submitted on 22.1.1985 by the succeeding inquiry officer wherein he has recorded findings that charge was proved against the petitioner on the basis of his admission. 7. In the circumstances, the inquiry report is said to have been submitted on 22.1.1985 by the succeeding inquiry officer wherein he has recorded findings that charge was proved against the petitioner on the basis of his admission. 7. Consequently a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the quantum of punishment. Reply was submitted by him on 23.5.1985. Thereafter the petitioner was awarded punishment of reduction in salary to the lowest grade in the pay scale of Rs. 354 to Rs. 550 for unspecified and unlimited period. 8. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal before appellate authority which was dismissed vide order dated 11.7.1986. On the same day an F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Ram Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Banda against the petitioner under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. which was registered as case crime No. 859 of 1996. It appears that hand writing experts also submitted reports before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in criminal case No. 2806 of 1990 under Sections 419, 420, I.P.C. on 21.9.1989. After hearing the parties the petitioner was discharged by the trial Court in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgment and order dated 4.8.2004. Revision filed by the State against the discharge of the petitioner also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Banda vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2004. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that : (1) charge is not proved against the petitioner; (2) the punishment awarded to him is not in accordance with law. 10. As regards first submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that : There is no evidence against the petitioner except the admission obtained from him under duress dated 15.11.1980 illegally confining him in the revenue lock-up without any order of the Collector or Assistant Collector on a report by Assistant Registrar Qanungo Yasin Ahmad. The first enquiry report dated 16.12.1984 conducted by Sri Dilip Sahai, S.D.O. clearly shows that no such order was passed by S.D.O. Shri Dilip Sahai to confine the petitioner in the revenue lock-up and it is, therefore, alleged order was never produced before him by the department despite being called up to do the same repeatedly. The encashment of Bills, in the treasury office is regulated by the statutory provisions. According to Sub-Treasury Manual Rule 234-Sub-Treasury Officer is the person responsible for the custody and encashment of the Bills. The encashment of Bills, in the treasury office is regulated by the statutory provisions. According to Sub-Treasury Manual Rule 234-Sub-Treasury Officer is the person responsible for the custody and encashment of the Bills. Rule 94 of the manual provides that physical verification -06 the amount shall be made every day:- Financial Hand-Book Vol. V (Part -2) Rule 47-A provides that bills shall not be entrusted for encashment except to responsible persons as defined in appendix - XVII of the volume. Receipt for the bill handed over for encashment should be taken from the person concerned in a separate register of bills passed for payment to be maintained. It provides that ordinarily the cashier appointed in treasury office is entrusted with the handling of cash. Other responsible persons who can be entrusted the bill for encashment are permanent peon or a temporary peon of at least two years service up to Rs. 500 a permanent peon of at least 10 years service or two ordinary, one of which should be of at least two years service up to Rs.1500/- two permanent peons or an official in permanent service of Government who has furnished security up to Rs. 3,000/- and Rule 489 of Financial Hand-Book Vol. V (Part -2) provides that in case the person entitled for payment cannot receive the payment directly from the bank, the person entrusted, for the encashment of bill will have to produce an authority letter before the bank in proper format- Form-85 (Also provided under Para 237 of sub-Treasury Manual). The report of hand writing expert as summoned by the Court in the criminal case shows complete non-identity of the signature in dispute with the signature on the basis of which the petitioner was discharged in the criminal case under Sections 409, 420, I.P.C. before trial. The petitioner has neither received the bill in the bill book nor he was provided any authority letter; bank has also not checked that letter, if these things are taken as correct, Mr. Yasin Ahmad Assistant Registrar Qanungo, who allegedly handed over the bills to the petitioner without receiving, against the rules, should also have been punished but he has not been punished. It itself shows that the petitioner has been made scape-goat in the present matter to save the skin some other officers involved. Yasin Ahmad Assistant Registrar Qanungo, who allegedly handed over the bills to the petitioner without receiving, against the rules, should also have been punished but he has not been punished. It itself shows that the petitioner has been made scape-goat in the present matter to save the skin some other officers involved. As regards the second submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that : The punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in violation of Rule 29 to the rules in Chapter IV of the Financial Hand-book Vol. II (Part 2 to 4) The Rule 29 mentioned above provides that every order passed by a competent authority imposing on a Government servant the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale should indicate the date from which it will take effect and the period (in terms of years and months) for which the penalty shall be operative. It should also indicate the stages in the time scale in terms of rupees to which the Government servant is reduced. It should further indicate the extent (in terms of years and months) if any, to which the period referred to above should operate to postpone further increments. It has been further provided under Rule 29 mentioned above that reduction to a lower stage in time scale is not permissible under the rules either for an unspecified period or as a permanent measure. 11. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the legal provisions and submits that argument of the petitioner are based on records. After hearing the counsel for the parties on the first point it appears that the petitioner is neither a Sub-Treasury Officer nor any other authority responsible to whom can be entrusted the encashment of bill. There is no evidence of receiving of the bills by the petitioner in the register of bills. There is also no evidence of having been issued any authority letter which could prove the charge against him. 12. As regards the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner that FIR was lodged on 11.7.1986 by Ram Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, after his retirement, the F.I.R. was lodged by him in his personal capacity and not in his official capacity. 12. As regards the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner that FIR was lodged on 11.7.1986 by Ram Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, after his retirement, the F.I.R. was lodged by him in his personal capacity and not in his official capacity. It also appears that the respondent has not submitted any order before the inquiry officer, therefore, the effect of the alleged confession extracted out by the respondents under duress by putting inside lock up without any order would be that it could not be relied upon by inquiry officer for awarding punishment. Moreover the petitioner has exonerated by the Court below in the criminal case holding that : “In the present case salary of the petitioner has been reduced in the lowest grade in the time scale for unspecified period. It is also not specified now the punishment, would operate in respect of future increments. Being in violation of statutory rules the punishment awarded to the petitioner in the present case is also illegal and liable to be quashed. Due to the illegal punishment awarded to the petitioner the petitioner has suffered loss of several increments and three promotions to the post of Accountant, Assistant Treasury Officer and Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer which the Juniors to the petitioner have been given. Petitioner who has retired on 31.3.2006 has not been paid gratuity and he is being paid reduced pension. The Hon’ble Court may kindly award the cost of Rs. 5 lacs with interest of the rate on 12% against the respondent/parties to compensate the petitioner against his illegal harassment for twenty years." 13. It may also be noticed that the petitioner immediately after coming out from the lock up had written his complaints to the authorities and also tried to lodge the FIR which was not registered by the police. In the circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and accordingly the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 11.7.1986 passed by respondent No. 4 are quashed. As a consequence the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits of service as if the aforesaid orders had not been passed. No order is passed as to costs. ———