Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1486 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Amar Singh

2018-07-05

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, VIKRAM NATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner and Sri Neelkamal Mishra & Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned counsels representing respondent No. 1. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (in short referred to as the Tribunal) in Review Petition No. 167 of 2015 arising out of Claim Petition No. 267 of 2015 whereby the earlier judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015 passed by the Tribunal whereby the claim petition was dismissed has been set aside and the claim petition has been allowed quashing the punishment order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of stoppage of two annual increments permanently and a censure entry along with recovery of Rs. 12,76,163.24. 3. From perusal of the record, we find that respondent No. 1 was posted as Assistant Engineer in Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, Construction Division-4, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Sultanpur (now Amethi) w.e.f. 01.08.2002 till 29.08.2012. The respondent was placed under suspension on 10.04.2013 on charges of financial irregularities causing financial loss to the State. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 17th October, 2013 holding that charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were found proved against the respondent No. 1. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing show cause notice and providing a copy of the enquiry report awarded the punishment by order dated 20.01.2015 as stated above. 4. Aggrieved by the punishment order, respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material available before it vide judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015 dismissed the claim petition. 5. Soon thereafter the respondent No. 1 came to know about a Circular/Office Order dated 1st March, 2011 issued by the Uttar Pradesh, Rural Road Development Authority which categorically provided that the Executive Engineer was fully authorized to sanction deviation in the contract under the Pradhanmantri Gramin Sadak Yojana, Construction Division-4 provided the said diversion/deviation was within the total cost of contract. In the present case, there is no dispute that actually the Executive Engineer had accorded sanction for the deviation as it was within the total cost of contract. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute that actually the Executive Engineer had accorded sanction for the deviation as it was within the total cost of contract. 6. According to the respondent No. 1, the alleged deviation/diversion in the contract was within the total cost of contract and had due approval/sanction of the Executive Engineer as such the charges alleged against him would not have any substance. On the basis of strength of said circular dated 1st March, 2011, the respondent No. 1 filed a review petition before the Tribunal which was registered as Review Petition No. 167 of 2015. 7. It was also the case of the respondent No. 1 that based upon the said circular dated 1st March, 2011 several other employees against whom diversion/deviation under the contract was alleged had not been proceeded with for departmental enquiry and even if proceeded with the enquiries had been dropped. 8. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 08.06.2016 relying upon the Circular dated 1st March, 2011 allowed the review petition and after setting aside the earlier order dated 26th August, 2015 allowed the claim petition and set aside the punishment order dated 20.01.2015. The Tribunal recorded a finding that firstly the Circular dated 1st March, 2011 was neither within the knowledge of the Inquiry Officer, nor the Disciplinary Authority which awarded the punishment or in the knowledge of the respondent (claim-petitioner) before it and further as the said circular had material bearing on the entire proceedings, it was liable to be considered and that the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer had passed the order without considering the said circular therefore the same was vitiated. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that in other similar cases where there were allegations of diversion/deviation under the contract, the Department had not proceeded or even if proceeded the enquiries had been dropped. 9. Learned counsel for the State-petitioner has not been able to show any material that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were either perverse or bad in law. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the State-petitioner has not been able to show any material that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were either perverse or bad in law. 10. The only submission raised by the learned counsel for the State-petitioner was that in case the Tribunal was satisfied that the relevant material had not been considered by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, the matter ought to have been remitted for re-consideration rather than being appreciated by the Tribunal itself and allowing the review petition as also the claim petition. 11. This argument would have had sub-stance but for the reason that if the same is considered the view taken by the Tribunal that it would not result into the proving of the charges or awarding of the punishment, we are of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the matter at this stage, as the matter relates to the alleged mis-conduct committed long back and remitting it would further unnecessarily cause delay and harassment not only to the respondent but also to the State. 12. For all the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this petition. 13. Petition is accordingly dismissed.