Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 48 (ALL)

BHAGWAN DAS SAXENA v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-07

RAJES KUMAR

body2014
Rajes Kumar,J.:- Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. By means of present petition the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 29th November, 2001 and appellate order dated 12.8.2003. 3. The petitioner was working as a Clerk. In the year 2000 he was posted in U.P. Cane Cooperative Department. In November, 1994 the petitioner was transferred from Sahakari Ganna Samiti, Majholu, Pilibhit to Bandaun as a Clerk. The petitioner has been given charge of the Accountant on retirement of Sri Surajbhan Khandelwal. It appears that in the year 1995 some farmers gave application for advance payment towards seed. The payment to such farmers has been recommended by Sri Kamta Prasad Verma, Ganna Parvekshak and the Secretary Sri Devendar Prasad Gupta has ordered for the payment. It appears that earlier the procedure was to make the payment by cash but instead of making the payment by cash the petitioner made the payment by cross cheque. The inquiry proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for two charges namely:- ( 1) vkjksi la[;k&1 izkFkfed ikS/k'kkyk /kkjdks dks xUuk cht forj.k ds fo:) vfxze /kujkf'k QthZ:i ls psd }kjk forfjr djkus ds nks"kh gSA vkjksi la[;k&2 vki mDr AA d`"kdksa ds uke xUuk cht ds fo:) vfxze /kujkf'k ds ,dkmUV isbZ psd ugha dkVus ds nks"kh gSA 4. The petitioner filed reply. On consideration of the reply the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report dated 5th May, 2001 which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In the inquiry report charge no.1 was found partly proved and the charge no.2 was not found proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment that why the petitioner should not be dismissed. In the show cause notice it is also observed that in respect of charge no.2 the Inquiry Officer has observed that in pursuance of the direction of the Secretary the payment has been made by cross cheque while no evidence has been adduced, therefore, this charge also stands proved. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. In the show cause notice it is also observed that in respect of charge no.2 the Inquiry Officer has observed that in pursuance of the direction of the Secretary the payment has been made by cross cheque while no evidence has been adduced, therefore, this charge also stands proved. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. By the impugned order dated 29th November, 2001 the petitioner has been punished as follows:- 1- bUgsa fyfid in ds osrueku 250&1500 ds izkjfEHkd osru ij mrkjk tkrk gSA 2- fuyEcu dky esa fn;s x;s thou fuokZg HkRrs ds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ osru vkfn ns; ugha gksxkA 3- ikfjr iaftdk esa fuEu izfrdwy izfof"V vafdr dh tkrh gSA "o"kZ 1994&95 esa xUuk lfefr cnk;wW esa fyfid@dk;Zokgd ys[kkdkj ds in ij dk;Zjr jgrs gq;s izkFkfed ikS/k'kkyk /kkjd AA d`"kdks dks xUuk cht forj.k ds fo:) vfxze /kujkf'k dk ,dkmUV isbZ psd u dkVdj dzkl psd ls QthZ :i ls forfjr djkus ds nks"kh ik;s x;sA" 5. Against the said order the petitioner filed appeal, which has been dismissed vide order dated 12th August, 2003. The appellate order is Annexure-15 to the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge no.1 and 2 both are co-related to each other. Both the charges were relating to the advance payment to the farmers. The allegation is that instead of making the payment by cash, the payment has been made by cross cheque. The said payment has been duly verified and recommended by the Ganna Parvekshak Sri Kamta Prasad Verma and the payment has been ordered by the then Secretary Sri Devendar Prasad Gupta. In the cross cheque the then Secretary has put the signature and while issuing the cheque no objection has been raised by the Secretary. In view of above, it is not a case of any irregularity or embezzlement of any amount on the part of the petitioner. To the contrary the payment by cheque was more safe than the cash payment. Thus, the punishment awarded is wholly unjustified. It is further submitted that though the charge no.2 was not found proved by the Inquiry Officer but without any basis the said charge has been held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the appellate authority has illegally confirmed the punishment order mechanically without application of mind. Learned standing counsel supported the impugned orders. 7. It is further submitted that though the charge no.2 was not found proved by the Inquiry Officer but without any basis the said charge has been held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the appellate authority has illegally confirmed the punishment order mechanically without application of mind. Learned standing counsel supported the impugned orders. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders and the documents available on record. In my view, both the impugned orders are not sustainable. The charge no.1 and charge no.2 are inter-related to each other. Both relate to the advance payment to the 11 farmers. It is not in dispute that the recommendation for payment has been made by the Ganna Parvekshak and the payment has been ordered by the then Secretary Sri Devendar Prasad Gupta. The practice might be for making the payment by cash but the payment has been made by the cross cheque, which has been duly signed by the then Secretary and no objection has been raised at the time of signing the cheque. The petitioner has taken more precaution in making the payment. Instead of making the payment by cash which was prevailing practice if the payment has been made by cross cheque, it does not amount to any irregularity being committed by the petitioner. No case of any embezzlement or financial irregularity has been made out. I am of the view that the punishment order is based on irrelevant considerations and is wholly unjustified. The appellate authority has illegally confirmed the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority mechanically without giving any valid reason. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The punishment order dated 29.11.2001 and the appellate order dated 12.8.2003 are hereby quashed.