Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 603 (UTT)

MADAN MOHAN KARNATAK v. DM ALMORA

2017-11-13

ALOK SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the dismissal order dated 17.06.2006 passed by District Magistrate Almora/ respondent no. 1. 3. Case of the petitioner is that at the relevant, petitioner was posted as Head Nazir in the office of District Magistrate Almora. The petitioner was suspended by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 31.12.2005. While passing the suspension order Sri B.S. Chalal was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 17.01.2006 to the effect that petitioner was not obeying order of higher authorities; petitioner issued bankers' cheque dated 23.12.2005 amounting to Rs. 75,000/- in favour unidentified person and certain irregularities were found in disbursement of the amount to the beneficiaries under the Chief Minister Relief Fund. 4. In response to the charge sheet, petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.02.2006. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. All the charges were proved, in the inquiry conducted by Inquiry Officer. He submitted inquiry report dated 02.03.2006. Pursuant to the inquiry report, petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 07.03.2006 by the District Magistrate calling reply from him as to why he may not be dismissed from services, as all the charges leveled against him stand proved. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.03.2006 stating that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to him. Thereafter, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 15.05.2006 that since petitioner was not given adequate and proper opportunity of hearing, therefore, Inquiry Officer should re-inquire the matter in accordance with the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. The Inquiry Officer again inquired the matter and came to the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of all the charges leveled against and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted second inquiry report dated 20.05.2006. The District Magistrate after going through inquiry report, issued show cause notice dated 22.05.2006 calling reply from the petitioner as to why major penalty may not be imposed against him and further as to why Rs. 75,000/- may not be recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his reply / explanation dated 12.06.2006. Thereafter, respondent no. The District Magistrate after going through inquiry report, issued show cause notice dated 22.05.2006 calling reply from the petitioner as to why major penalty may not be imposed against him and further as to why Rs. 75,000/- may not be recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his reply / explanation dated 12.06.2006. Thereafter, respondent no. 1, after going through inquiry report, other material available on record as well as reply submitted by the petitioner passed the impugned order dated 17.06.2006 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 17.06.2006, petitioner approached present writ petition. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that he has not been given proper opportunity of hearing in inquiry and further the impugned order is passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contends that the impugned dismissal order is totally disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. 7. I have gone through the entire record as well as inquiry report. Having perused the record, I found that the contention of the petitioner is contrary to the records. Inquiry report shows that the petitioner has been given full and adequate opportunity of hearing in order to defend his case, therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Moreover, in paragraph 9 of the reply /explanation dated 16.05.2006, petitioner submitted that he does not want to examine or cross examine any of the witnesses, which means that petitioner was fully satisfied with the inquiry. 8. Apart from the above, petitioner himself has written in letter dated 29.12.2005/28.12.2005 (Annexure No. CA3 to the counter affidavit) to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Almora that somebody else in place of Mr. Pramod Kumar had taken the bankers' cheque dated 23.12.2005, so it may not be en-cashed. The petitioner is also involved so many other cases likewise in nature and 42 criminal cases have been lodged against him, as is clear from paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. The said fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, more so, he has admitted the said fact in his rejoinder affidavit. Petitioner stated in paragraph no. 3 of his rejoinder affidavit that he has been implicated in 42 cases and out of 42 cases, he is on bail in 30 cases. The said fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit, more so, he has admitted the said fact in his rejoinder affidavit. Petitioner stated in paragraph no. 3 of his rejoinder affidavit that he has been implicated in 42 cases and out of 42 cases, he is on bail in 30 cases. Petitioner further tried to show his innocence by filing an order passed by this Court whereby the Court had compounded the criminal case no. 31 of 2009, which was filed as Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit. 9. The petitioner cannot get advantage of the aforesaid order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court compounding the criminal case, as departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are totally two different proceedings. In the department inquiry, the charges against the petitioner has been fully proved and ample opportunity of hearing was given to him, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of dismissal. 10. In view of above facts, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.