Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 592 (UTT)

Harendra Singh Bora v. District Judge, Champawat

2014-12-17

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a Peon in District Judgeship Champawat. The case against the petitioner is that while he was discharging his duties as a Peon in Champawat, a bail application was filed in the court. The court was pleased to grant the bail to the applicant. The order to this effect was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat on 11.08.2009, however, since the applicant was lodged in a Jail in Almora, which is another District. Consequently as per the procedure these release orders were to be sent by registered post to the District Jail, Almora along with the personal bonds. This envelope, which was given in the custody of the present petitioner, which he was to send by registered post on 11.08.2009 to Jail Authority, Almora were received by Jail Authorities, Almora on 18.08.2009. However, the envelope contained only blank papers. The applicant in whose favour the release order was passed, had already been released by the Jail Authorities on 12.08.2009 itself on furnishing of the actual papers. 2. A departmental proceeding was hence initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was served to him where the charges were broadly that he had manipulated court documents. He had given the release order and the accompanying sureties etc. through Pairokar of the applicant and in the envelope, which he had sent by registered post was merely in order to complete formalities and there was nothing in the envelope, except plain papers, which was received by the Jail Authorities at Almora. The applicant though in his defence denied that he has not done this act but all the evidence was against the petitioner. It was admitted case that it was the petitioner who had given the envelope, not only this he torn the envelope and placed blank papers in another envelope. Thereafter the Appointing Authority has passed the maximum order of punishment in the matter and dismissed him from the service vide order dated 19.08.2009. This order was challenged by the petitioner on administrative side before this Court, which also did not find any favour and was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the present writ petition before this Court. 3. As far as the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is concerned, no fault or anomaly can be found in the proceeding. This order was challenged by the petitioner on administrative side before this Court, which also did not find any favour and was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the present writ petition before this Court. 3. As far as the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is concerned, no fault or anomaly can be found in the proceeding. None, that could be pointed out by the petitioner, therefore, there is no occasion of this Court to disagree with the finding of the Inquiry Officer or Appointing Authority and as far as the charges against the petitioner is concerned they have been fully established against him. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, however, also argued on the quantum of punishment and he would argue that his past service record is without any blemish. Nothing to be contrary has been shown by the counsel for the respondents. Penologically speaking punishment must be in proportion to the crime or offence one has committed. In the present case, the charge against the petitioner was not exactly of manipulating court’s order or document or making wrong entries in the records or charges of such nature. The charge against him was that the release order was given by him to the Pairokar of the applicant. The fault, however, lies with the petitioner that in order to cover up this he torn the envelope and gave release order to the Pairokar and thereafter, put blank paper in another envelope. This act though cannot be condoned yet the fact remains that there was a bona fide release order in favour of said applicant, who was in jail and released by a competent court and thereafter he was to be released in accordance with law. But considering the fault of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal appears to be disproportionate to his alleged deed. Therefore, upholding the finding of the initial Inquiry Officer the punishment part is liable to be interfered with by this Court. There is yet another aspect which is that the petitioner is without his job since the last five years. This cannot be without some suffering. 5. The petitioner has placed before this Court the Rules known as “The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The relevant Rule 4 of the said rules reads as under:- “4. There is yet another aspect which is that the petitioner is without his job since the last five years. This cannot be without some suffering. 5. The petitioner has placed before this Court the Rules known as “The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1976. The relevant Rule 4 of the said rules reads as under:- “4. Punishments-(1) The following penalties may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be imposed by a District Judge on the ministerial or Class IV employees of the Subordinate Courts of the judgeship: (a) censure; (b) fine of an amount not exceeding one month’s pay; (c) stoppage at an efficiency bar; (d) withholding of increments; (e) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence of breach of orders; (f) reduction to a lower post, time scale or grade, or to a lower stage in a time scale or graded scale; (g) removal from the service of the State which does not disqualify for future employment; and (h) dismissal from the service of the State which ordinarily disqualifies for future employment:” Provided that the penalty specified in clause (a) or clause (b) may be imposed also by the Presiding Officer of a subordinate court on a member of the Staff attached to his Court: Provided also that the penalty specified in clause (b) shall not be imposed on any person other than a class IV employee.” [emphasis supplied] 6. As far as the reduction to a lower post, time scale or grade, or to a lower stage in a time scale or graded scale is concerned, which is a punishment prescribed under Rule 4 of the above rules, the same evidently cannot be given to the petitioner, as he is already working on the lowest post i.e. of Peon, and is lowest in pay scale or grade. Therefore, only punishment is stoppage of increments of five years, starting from 2009 or 2010, as the case might be. Let the same be done and his punishment is hereby reduced/modified for dismissal to the one above. 7. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, however, he shall not be entitled for any back wages or any other benefit. He shall be treated to be in continuous service and the period will be notionally added for all other purposes, including his past notional benefit. 8. 7. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service, however, he shall not be entitled for any back wages or any other benefit. He shall be treated to be in continuous service and the period will be notionally added for all other purposes, including his past notional benefit. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.