Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1534 (ALL)

Charan Singh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2019-06-14

RAJEEV SINGH

body2019
ORDER : Rajeev Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri. S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. J.K. Sinha, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri. Manjiv Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension and attachment order No. 498/37-3-2019-7(32)/2012 dated 01.06.2019. 3. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of the case, are that vide Government letter dated 27.08.2013, permission was accorded to the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P. Lucknow, for recruitment on the post of Livestock Extension Officers under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002, as amended in the year 2013. In pursuance to the same, vacancies existing in each division were advertised on or on behalf of appointing authority, by the Additional Director Grade-II of the concerned division between 14 to 16 December, 2013 in newspapers having wide circulation. The examination is stated to have been held on 02.02.2014. Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, convened a meeting of the appointing authorities of each division for working out the modalities for uniform evaluation of the answer sheets, in pursuance to which, the Director, Animal Husbandry Department U.P., Lucknow wrote a letter dated 21.02.2014 to the State Government for taking appropriate decision for evaluation of answer sheets/OMR sheets of the competitive written examination held on 02.02.2014. Vide letter dated 24.02.2014, State Government accorded no objection for getting the answer sheets evaluated from a reputed institution having experience of 3 to 4 years of conducting the written examinations of Union Public Service Commission/Public Service Commission/JEE/CPMT and also having experience of evaluating of the answer sheets/OMR sheets with good track record. In pursuance to the same, offers were received by the authorities from Subharti Medical University, Meerut, Tata Consultancy Ltd. Lucknow. Vide letter dated 25.02.2014, Director, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P. Lucknow requested to Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow for the evaluation work, in response to which, the aforesaid University consented to do the evaluation work. Accordingly, vide letter dated 03.03.2014, Director, Animal Husbandry Department informed all the appointing authorities of each division to collect the answer sheets/OMR sheets and handover the same to the aforesaid University. However, the said University, later on, refused to evaluate the answer sheets. Accordingly, vide letter dated 03.03.2014, Director, Animal Husbandry Department informed all the appointing authorities of each division to collect the answer sheets/OMR sheets and handover the same to the aforesaid University. However, the said University, later on, refused to evaluate the answer sheets. Consequently, Principal Secretary, U.P. vide letter dated 20.03.2014 required the Director, Animal Husbandry Department to get the answer sheets remained with Dr. Shakuntala Mishra University securely. The Director was also directed to constitute a Committee to ensure that no manipulation/tampering is done in the answer sheets/OMR sheets. Thereafter, the answer sheet/OMR sheet were handed over to Firoze Gandhi, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli for evaluation, which, after evaluation, handed over the result of successful candidates to the said Committee. Vide letter dated 04.06.2014, the Committee handed over the merit list to the respective Additional Director Grade-II and required all the Additional Director Grade-II to get the number of interview of the candidates provided to the Firoze Gandhi Institute for preparation of the final result. 4. In the meantime, the controversy has come up before this Court at Allahabad. In Writ-A No. 52161 of 2014 (Mohd. Akram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) along with connected matter. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2017 required the State Government to clarify the position, in pursuance to which, State Government decided to enquire the entire selection process by a Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as "SIT"). It is on the basis of the report of the said SIT dated 18.12.2017, the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 has been passed suspending the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in the most illegal and arbitrary manner, without application of mind as no allegations are mentioned in the impugned order and merely on the basis of the report of the SIT, the impugned order of suspension has been passed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the said SIT report, an F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 0001 of 2019 was also lodged by the Inspector, SIT under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201, I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. SIT, U.P., Lucknow. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1277 of 2019 (Dr. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (M/B) No. 1277 of 2019 (Dr. Charan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) seeking quashing of the said F.I.R., which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1st March, 2019 with the direction that unless legally actionable incriminating evidence is found against the petitioner, he be not proceeded against. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the investigation is going on in the aforesaid F.I.R., therefore, there was no necessity to place the petitioner under suspension by means of the impugned order. 6. Next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was working as Chief Veterinary Officer in Kanpur since 2012 and was having additional charge of Additional Director Grade-II, Kanpur Region, and in such capacity, he published the advertisement dated 14th December, 2013 with regard to two years training for the post of Livestock Extension Officer along with respective reservations in various categories in Kanpur Region in the news papers, on the basis of written instructions dated 11th December, 2013 provided by the office of Director, wherein complete details were mentioned. It is further submitted that after scrutiny of the forms, the examination for the said post was conducted on 2nd February, 2014 and as per the directions of the then Director, the answer sheets were got evaluated by Firoze Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli. After evaluation, the list of successful candidates in the written examination was made available by the said University to the petitioner and all other Additional Directors Grade-II. It is also contended that on the basis of the order of the then Director, Dr. Rudra Pratap dated 30th May, 2014, it was directed by the Chairman of the nominated Committee vide letter dated 4th June, 2014 to all the Additional Directors Grade-II to send the marks scored by the candidates in the interview in sealed cover envelope to the Firoze Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the very same day, i.e., on 4th June, 2014, Additional Directors Grade-II, including the petitioner, agitated the matter before the concerned Ministry and the Principal Secretary of the Department directed that the final result should be prepared by the Additional Director Grade-II. Consequently, appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the very same day, i.e., on 4th June, 2014, Additional Directors Grade-II, including the petitioner, agitated the matter before the concerned Ministry and the Principal Secretary of the Department directed that the final result should be prepared by the Additional Director Grade-II. Consequently, appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. He further submitted that petitioner performed his duties in accordance with the provisions of the Rules while conducting the examination and no any complaint with regard to Kanpur region has ever been made. It is also submitted that the then Director, Dr. Rudra Pratap was highly influential person, therefore, nobody dared to raise voice against him. 7. It is lastly contended that later on, State Government appointed SIT to conduct an inquiry in the matter, which submitted its report to the Government, consequent to which F.I.R. No. 1 of 2019 (supra) was lodged against six persons, including the petitioner. He further submitted that aforesaid F.I.R. is the conclusion of the SIT report and in the said F.I.R., sweeping allegations have wrongly been made against the petitioner for roping him in the alleged commission of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is going to retire on 30th September, 2019 and at the fag end of his career, without there being any material or any legally actionable incriminating evidence found against him, he has wrongly and illegally been placed under suspension. 8. Learned Chief Standing Counsel, in rebuttal, submitted that a detail inquiry was conducted by the SIT under the orders of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 52161 of 2014 (Md. Akram & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) along with connected Writ Petition No. 5010 of 2015 (Anuj Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) vide order dated 13th December, 2017. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the disciplinary proceedings have been contemplated on the basis of findings of the SIT report. Shri. Sinha also submitted that the petitioner has rightly been suspended by the impugned order dated 1st June, 2019 under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 9. Shri. Sinha also submitted that the petitioner has rightly been suspended by the impugned order dated 1st June, 2019 under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the pleadings and the records placed by the Chief Standing Counsel related to the suspension and the SIT report. 10. The aforesaid controversy when travelled up to this Court by means of various petitions, this Court at Allahabad vide order dated 13.12.2017 passed in Writ-A No. 52161 of 2014 along with connected matter, has raised following six issues: "(i) How the provisions of Rule 15(3) have been applied within the selection in question relating for regions? Documentary evidence in support of the contention shall also be filed alongwith affidavit. (ii) When the total marks for written examination and interview were fixed as 80 and 20 respectively then how the written examination paper provides for total/maximum 100 marks in written examination? How answer sheets of 100 marks questions has been evaluated for 80 marks? File copies of few such answer sheets. (iii) Whether under Rule 15(3) of the Rules providing that after tabulation the Selection Committee having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other categories in accordance with Rule 6 call for interviews such number of candidates as on the result of written examination, has been followed? If the answer is in affirmative then documentary evidence shall be filed. It shall also be explained that how the interview letter could have been issued prior to the receipt of the tabulation sheet as has been indicated above? (iv) How selected list can be prepared by an agency, namely, Feroze Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli. U.P., in contravention of the provisions of Rule 15(3)/(4) of the Rules, which provides that Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates in order or merit as disclosed by aggregate of marks obtained by them in the written test and interview? (v) Under which provisions of the Rules the evaluation of written examination OMR sheets was done by Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow,/or other work by Feroze Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli. U.P.? (v) Under which provisions of the Rules the evaluation of written examination OMR sheets was done by Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow,/or other work by Feroze Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Raebareli. U.P.? (vi) The entire selection process as adopted shall be stated in chronological order supported by documentary evidences and the statutory provisions/Government orders." 11. In pursuance to the said order, Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Government of U.P., Lucknow informed the Court that a three-members Committee was constituted to look into the points/issues raised by the High Court. The said Committee submitted its report dated 18th December, 2017 and in the light of the said report, the State Government vide Office Order No. U.O.124/Chah-Pu-3-2017-7/(32)/2012-(Pashudhan Anubhag-3) issued by the Secretary Home, U.P. to the Director General of Police (SIT) Uttar Pradesh through Grih (Police) Anubhag-3 dated 20.12.2017, has decided that since substantial discrepancies and irregularities have been found in the selection process to the post of Livestock Extension Officer, the entire selection process be enquired by a SIT. 12. This Court at Allahabad in yet another petition being Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015 (Virendra Govind Rao v. State of U.P. & Ors.) finding the entire selection process to be a result of corruption, vide order dated 12.12.2017 observed as under: (relevant portion). "From the averments made in the writ petition and admission thereof in the relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit as aforequoted would reveal that the applications were to be filed only on line, the petitioner applied on line for the aforesaid posts being a departmental dresser, no examination was conducted on 2.2.2014, no written examination has been conducted even thereafter and without there being any proper selection, some persons including the respondent No. 5 were selected and they have been sent for two years training. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the entire process of selection prima facie appears to be the result of corruption and criminal act which needs to be dealt with sternly. Under the circumstances, the Court proposes to impose exemplary costs to be recovered from personal salary and/or assets of the guilty officers including the appointing authority and to direct the State Government to initiate inquiry in the matter and lodge First Information Report. Therefore, an opportunity is afforded to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to file their personal affidavits in this regard." (Emphasised by me) 13. Therefore, an opportunity is afforded to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to file their personal affidavits in this regard." (Emphasised by me) 13. In view of aforesaid, it is much obvious that under the directions of this Court, the State Government issued the Office Order dated 20.12.2017 for getting the inquiry done by the SIT in the matter. In pursuance to the said order, SIT conducted the detail inquiry and after recording statements of so many persons, including the petitioner and other Additional Directors came to the conclusion that the then Director, petitioner and other officers were involved in the illegal selection of the Livestock Extension Officers by violating the statutory provisions. After conducting the said inquiry, SIT submitted its detail report dated 6th September, 2018 containing 233 pages, which was forwarded by the Inspector General. SIT. U.P., Lucknow to Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow on 17th October, 2018 with its findings and recommendations. After conducting the said inquiry, SIT submitted its detail report dated 6th September, 2018 containing 233 pages, which was forwarded by the Inspector General. SIT. U.P., Lucknow to Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow on 17th October, 2018 with its findings and recommendations. The four recommendations made by the SIT, are quoted hereunder: ^^laLrqfr& 1- tkWp ds e/; ladfyr ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dh lfUUkjh{kk ls ik;k x;k fd HkrhZ izfdz;k esa Mk0 :nzizrki] RkRdkyhu funs'kd] i'kqikyu m0iz0] Mk0 ih0ds0 f=ikBh] la;qDr funs'kd] iz'kklu] Mk0 pj.k flag ;kno] funs'kd i'kqikyu m0iz0 ,oa Mk0 th0,u0 flag] RkRdkyhu vij funs'kd xzsM&2 QStkckn e.My] QSTkkckn }kjk vius inh; vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, eks0 b'kjr] flLVe ,MfefuLVsªVj] fQjkst xkW/kh bULVhV~;wV vkQ bUthfu;fjax ,oa VsDuksykWth] jk;cjsyh ls vkijkf/kd nqjfHklaf/k djds fu;efo:) rjhds] Ny ds iz;kstu ls mRRkj iqfLrdkvksa ds ewY;kadu gsrq QthZ vuqcU/k i= rS;kj djds HkrhZ izfdz;k dks vfu;fer@voS/kkfud ,oa mRRkj izns'k i'kq/ku izlkj ,oa dqDdqV fodkl lsok fu;ekoyh&2002 ;Fkkla'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh&2013@izkfo/kkuksa dk mYYka?ku djrs gq, lEikfnr fd;k x;k gS] ijh{kk esa lfEEkfyr v;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk ,oa ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa dks gkfu igqWpk;h x;h gS rFkk vuqcU/k i=@egRoiw.kZ lk{;ksa dk foyksiu] ljdkjh /ku dk viO;; fd;k x;k gS] tks izFken "V;k /kkjk 409@420@467@468@471@120ch@201 Hkknafo ,oa 13¼1½Mh Hkz0 fu0 vf/k0 dk vijk/k gSA Mk0d ".k izrki flag] RkRdkyhu vij funs'kd xzsM&2 xksj[kiqj e.My] xksj[kiqj }kjk vius inh; vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq, Mk0 :nzizrki] funs'kd i'kqikyu m0iz0 ls vkijkf/kd nqjfHklaf/k djds fu;efo:) rjhds] Ny ds iz;kstu ls 10 izfr'kr Mªslj ls i'kq/ku izlkj vf/kdkfj;ksa ds inksa p;u gsrq fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj djk;s fcuk p;u fd;k x;k] tks izFken "V;k /kkjk 420@467@468@471@120ch Hkknafo ,oa 13¼1½Mh Hkz0 fu0 vf/k0 dk vijk/k gSA vr% izdj.k esa mijksDr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ iathd r fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA 2- Mk0 vaxn mik/;k;] Mk0 pj.k flag ;kno] Mk0 ujsUnz izrki flag xgykSRk] Mk0 ,l0ih0 ;kno] Mk0 th0,u0 flag @Mk0 ds0,l0 flag@Mk0 ds0ih0 flag] Mk0 vkj0ds0 ;kno@Mk0 c ts'k dqekj ok".ksZ;] Mk0 ,e0ch0 rkfjd@Mk0 gjiky flag@Mk0 ,0ds0 flag] Mk0 oh0ds0 ok".kZs;] Mk0 dkS'kysUnz flag] Mk0 pUnznRRk 'kekZ] Mk0 izdk'k pUnz] Mk0 vkj0lh0 ik.Ms;] Mk0 vejsUnz ukFk flag] Mk0 th0lh0 f}osnh@Mk0 fofiu dqekj vxzoky] Mk0 ,0ih0 flag] Mk0 vuwi dqekj JhokLro] Mk0 d ".k izrki flag }kjk lEiw.kZ HkrhZ izfdz;k esa mRRkj izns'k i'kq/ku izlkj ,oa dqDdqV fodkl lsok fu;ekoyh&2002 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh&2013 ,oa dkfeZd foHkkx dh lqlaxr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&6@15¼3½¼4½ dk vuqikyu u djrs gq, vius inh; nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu u djus ds lEcU/k esa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA 3- Mk0 jkeizrki 'kekZ] funs'kd] fQjkst xkW/kh bULVhV~;wV vkQ bUthfu;fjax ,oa VsDuksykWth] jk;cjsyh }kjk laLFkku ds funs'kd ds inh; nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu u djus ,oa v/khuLFkksa ds dk;ksZ dk i;Zos{k.k lE;d :i ls u djus ds dkj.k muds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA 4- Jh nhid dqekj 'kekZ] LVkEiosUMj] ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; tuin y[kuÅ }kjk LVkEi fOkdz; jftLVj ij fodz; fd;s x;s LVkEi isij dks xyr rjhds ls vafdr dj ykblsal esa fn;s x;s izkfo/kkuksa dk mYYka?ku dj vfu;ferrk djus ds dkj.k mudk LVkEi fcdz; ykblsal fujLr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA^^ 14. It is also worthy to be noticed here that SIT in its report dated 6th September, 2018 has mentioned the fact that in pursuance to the order of the Principal Secretary, U.P. vide letter dated 20.03.2014, the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, U.P. vide letter dated 21.03.2014, earlier constituted a three-members Committee consisting of Dr. A.P. Singh as Chairman, Additional Director Grade-II, Lucknow Division Lucknow as Chairman along with Dr. Rajesh Varshney, Additional Director Grade-II, B.P. Institution, Badshahbag, Lucknow and Dr. Angad Upadhyay, Additional Director Grade-II, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. However, later on, Dr. G.N. Singh Additional Director Grade-II, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and Dr. Charan Singh, Additional Directors Grade-II, Kanpur Division, Kanpur (petitioner) have been nominated as Member in place of Dr. Rajesh Varshney and Dr. Angad Upadhyay. 15. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner was the active member of the Committee constituted by the then Director and during the course of fact finding inquiry conducted by the SIT, sufficient material was found against him and, as such SIT recommended for lodging of F.I.R. and also for departmental proceedings. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned suspension order has illegally been passed merely on the basis of SIT report without mentioning any reason, has no legs to stand and is hereby turned down. After going through the detail inquiry report, it is crystal clear that the impugned suspension order dated 1st June, 2019 has rightly been passed and there is no illegality in the same. 17. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. 18. However, considering the fact that petitioner is going to retire on 30th September, 2019, the following directions are being issued. 19. The respondent authorities are directed to provide a charge sheet to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner may submit his reply to the same within next 15 days. 19. The respondent authorities are directed to provide a charge sheet to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner may submit his reply to the same within next 15 days. It is further directed that the Inquiry Officer shall conclude the inquiry and submit a report to the appointing authority within two months after filing of such reply by the petitioner, and, the appointing authority, on receipt of the said report, shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner along with inquiry report within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving of the said report. Subsequently, the petitioner may submit his reply within next two weeks and the appointing authority, in turn, is directed to take a reasoned and speaking decision on the said reply of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of filing of such reply by the petitioner and communicate the same to him forthwith.