Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3006 (ALL)

HIRA LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-09-25

ASHOK PAL SINGH, RAKESH TIWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has not only challenged his termination order dated 07.03.1989 passed by his appointing authority / respondent no. 3 but has also challenged the correctness and validity of the judgment and order dated 03.11.1998 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhavan, Lucknow in his claim petition. A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on account of embezzlement of Rs. 1,500/- while acting as a Kurk Ameen. Three charges were framed against him as follows: ^^vkjksi la[;k 1%& ftl le; vki rglhy fljkFkw esa dqdZ vehu ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks vkius esllZ peZ m|ksx lgdkjh lfefr pea/kk ds Lokeh uudw iq= cq/kbZ ls fnukad 26-9-77 dks jlhn la[;k 79@36001 ¼QkeZ ua0&4½ ds }kjk eq0 1500 :i;s izkIr djds jktdh; dks"k esa u tek dj xcu dj fy;k gSA vkSj mldk iz;ksx vius futh O;; esa fd;kA ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSA vkjksi dh iqf"V esa fuEu lk{; iBuh; gSaA d- fjiksVZ ijxuk vf/kdkjh fljkFkw fnukad 13-2-78 [k- fjiksVZ Jh yky th lgk; rRdkyhu MCyq0ch0,u0 fljkFkw x- fjiksVZ Jh ikjl ukFk ik.Ms; rglhynkj fljkFkwA ¼17-4-78½ ?k- fjiksVZ uk;c rglhynkj {ks= mRrjh fnukad 27-9-77 M- fjiksVZ uk;c rglhynkj {ks= mRrjh fnukad 29-9-77 p- fjiksVZ L;kgk uohl mi dks"kkxkj fljkFkw fnukad 26-9-77 vkjksi la[;k 2%& jlhn la[;k 79@36001 ¼QkeZ ua0 4½ rglhy fljkFkw ds lxzg dk;kZy; ls ugha tkjh dh xbZA ;g jlhn vkius voS/k :i ls izkIr djds bldk iz;ksx djds tkylkth dk dk;Z fd;k rFkk vki ij xEHkhj vkjksi fl) gksrk gS ftlds fy, vki iw.kZr;k nks"kh gSA bl vkjksi dh iqf"V esa vkjksi la[;k ,d ds lkFk ifBr lk+{; iBuh; gSA vkjksi la[; 3 %& vkt tSls ljdkjh deZpkjh }kjk QthZ jlhn izkIr djds 1500@&:i;s dh olwyh djuk rFkk mls jktdh; dks"k esa u tek fd;k tkuk ,d n.Muh; vijk/k gS rFkk vkius vius drZC;ksa o ljdkjh in dk nq:iz;ksx fd;k gSaA blls turk ds izfr jktLo foHkkx dh Nfc /kwfey gqbZ gSA vki bl vkjksi ds fy;s iw.kZ :i ls mRrjnkbZ gSA bl vkjksi dh iqf"V esa vkjksi la[;k ,d ds lkFk ifBr lk{; gh iBuh; gSA After completion of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer the charges were found fully proved. On the basis of report of Inquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority passed the punishing order for his termination. It appears that against the said termination order an appeal was filed by him and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. However, the said appellate order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that relevant documents were not supplied to him and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. There is a categorical finding of the Tribunal in its impugned order that not only copies of relevant documents were given to the petitioner but also he was allowed to make inspection of the documents. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner had put his signatures also to that effect. The relevant portion of the judgment impugned is extracted as under: "10. In the punishment order, it is clear mentioned that the charges were duly proved against the petitioner. It is clear from the perusal of enquiry report also, which is available in departmental file. The Tribunal is not expected to go into detail about the facts and evidence during enquiry etc. unless, there is any perversity in the findings. From the perusal of enquiry file, it is clear that there is no perversity in the findings. From the perusal of enquiry file, it is clear that there is no perversity in the findings. Since the petitioner had produced defence witnesses also and he had inspected the relevant documents and copies of relevant documents were also supplied to him and he replied to the charges and his explanation to the show cause notice duly considered by the punishing authority. As such, in the light of abot ruling, the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case, because they were passed in different context. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Union of India and others Versus Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 AIR AC 47 that mandatory provisions regarding supply of enquiry report shall be applicable with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. Accordingly, there is no illegality in non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner, because the punishment order was passed prior to pronouncement of judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ramzan Khan, 1991 AIR AC 47 that mandatory provisions regarding supply of enquiry report shall be applicable with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. Accordingly, there is no illegality in non-supply of enquiry report to the petitioner, because the punishment order was passed prior to pronouncement of judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11.In the light of above, the claim petition is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The claim petition is dismissed. No order is made as to costs." Perusal of the record reveals that a proper charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. He was also allowed personal hearing and had produced defence witnesses during the said inquiry. After the charges were found fully proved, the petitioner was also issued show cause notice by the Punishing Authority which passed the punishment order after duly considering the reply given by the petitioner. While awarding punishment, the Punishing Authority, in view of the seriousness of the charges which were found proved against the petitioner, was of the view that he was not suitable to remain in service. It was only thereafter that order of punishment of termination of the petitioner was passed. After careful consideration of the entire matter, we find that there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no illegality or any perversity in the impugned orders. Before parting, it may also be pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgements rendered in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 , Nepal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 84 and Khem Chand Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 300 (1) but we find that they are not applicable to the facts of this case. In our considered opinion for all the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ------