Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 554 (ALL)

MOHD. ZAKIR HUSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2018-03-07

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, IRSHAD ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Wasim Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/recovery certificate dated 12.8.2009 and recovery citation dated 28.8.2009 issued by the respondent No. 3 (annexed as Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ petition). 3. It appears from the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the charge of financial irregularity committed by him to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs but even before the charge-sheet was issued, the impugned recovery certificate and recovery citation were illegally issued by the respondent No. 3, for recovery of a highly inflated and incorrect of sum of Rs. 30 lacs, with regard to which the departmental proceedings against the petitioner had just commenced, without waiting for the result of the inquiry. 4. Sri Praveen Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent disputes the aforesaid aspect of the matter. However, he has submitted that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner have culminated into his dismissal on the charge being found proved against him. He invited out attention to the copy of the dismissal order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-I to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 5. Having perused the order of dismissal dated 6.8.2015, we find that although initially the petitioner was charged with having committed financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 11 lacs, but during the inquiry the involvement of the petitioner was found only to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs, as is evident from the perusal of the petitioner’s dismissal order dated 6.8.2015 (Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit of the State. Hence no amount in excess of Rs. 4 lacs can be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned order does not provide for recovery of the embezzled amount. Hence under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the respondents can recover a sum of Rs. 4 lacs at most from the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 7. The impugned recovery certificate and the citation are hereby quashed. It will open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for recovery of Rs. 4 lacs at most from the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 7. The impugned recovery certificate and the citation are hereby quashed. It will open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for recovery of Rs. 4 lacs only from the petitioner, for which the petitioner has been held liable. 8. It is further made clear that any recovery made from the petitioner shall abide by the final order which may be passed in the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal.