Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 467 (RAJ)

Gauri Shankar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-02-23

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has assailed the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of audit reports under Section 74 (1) of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965") and has prayed that the said inquiries be called for and the same be quashed and set aside and further the petitioner be granted compensation for unnecessary harassment in wrongful prosecution. 2. The petitioner appearing in person submits that he was posted at Ajmer as a Deputy Manager on 30.06.1981 and (chilling (centre) was brought in his possession vide order dated 04.11.1981 and submits that the handling loss was brought down by him from 24% to 1%. On account of such action, the colleague with the purpose of harassing his career got annual audit reports prepared for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83 while petitioner was under suspension from 01.10.1982. The petitioner submits that charge sheets were served upon him and the Chief Auditor vide his order dated 30.01.1995 held the petitioner guilty of the charges and directed recovery of the amount. The petitioner has challenged the said orders on the basis that the proceedings had been completed on 19.04.1994 but no action was taken and he therefore had to approach this court by preferring the writ petition No. 6071/1994 praying that the Chief Auditor be directed to take decision as he was bound to decide within a period of 60 days. This court decided the writ petition and directed Co-operative Department to decide the matter within a period of six weeks vide order dated 19.12.1994. It is stated that while the petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring an appeal under Section 124 of the Act of 1965, the order passed by Chief Auditor was in haste and the petitioner submits that the appeal was decided by the Additional Registrar vide order dated 07.08.1997 who set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Chief Auditor for fresh decision and again the matter is pending with the Cooperative Department while the petitioner has suffered harassment and humiliation. 3. The petitioner has taken this court to the audit report to submit that on the audit report, there are no signatures of the Manager. 3. The petitioner has taken this court to the audit report to submit that on the audit report, there are no signatures of the Manager. The audit report mentions that the same is for the year 1981-82 and it states that the audit was completed and concluded in June 1984 however in subsequent cases, it mentions about a cheque having been issued on 19.07.1984, and thus, it is submitted that the audit report is a temporary document and cannot be relied upon to initiate inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the inquiries were conducted against the petitioner relating to the same year by initiating two different inquiries, one for the quarterly reports of the audit and another for the yearly report for the audit for the same year. Thus, two inquiries were conducted for the quarterly reports for 1981-82 and 1982-83 and two inquiries were conducted for annual report of 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner submits that in the quarterly report, the alleged loss to the Department is mentioned as 1,09,934.46/- relating to the period 1982-83 however, in the annual report as reflected in Annexure R-2/2 for the same year 1982-83, the sum reflected is less than of Rs. 15590/-. It is further submitted that in a decision of the Chief Audit Officer relating to the annual report, the petitioner has not been found guilty as is apparent from Annexure R-2/2. Similarly for the year 1982-83, the Chief Audit Officer has not found the petitioner guilty of the charge as the petitioner was under suspension from 01.10.1982 but for the quarterly reports, the petitioner has been held guilty. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said orders and the Appellate Authority has without applying its mind dismissed one of the appeals relating to 1981-82 but has remanded the matter again to Audit Officer for the quarterly report of 1981-82 and 1982-83. Thus, the petitioner submits that he has been put to harassment and on account of such actions, the petitioner was deprived of his due promotion also. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department submits that based on the audit report, action was taken and the same has to be treated as justified. 6. Thus, the petitioner submits that he has been put to harassment and on account of such actions, the petitioner was deprived of his due promotion also. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department submits that based on the audit report, action was taken and the same has to be treated as justified. 6. I have considered the submissions and also carefully looked into the order passed by Chief Audit Officer under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965 as well as the appellate orders passed subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition. 7. This court finds that the basis of the entire proceedings is an audit report prepared and extracts whereof have been placed on record as Annexure-4. It is noticed that this audit report mentions of having conducted the audit for the year 1981-82 and concluding the same on June 1984 at page 50 of the writ petition. It is shown that a cheque of July 1984 of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been received and there is a shortage of Rs. 86,268/- or more and list of persons against whom amount of Rs. 4516.43/- is due, mentions that they were temporary appointed while the list mentions about ex-employees. The audit report has been made on the basis of initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965 and two kinds of inquiries have been conducted, one for the quarterly report and another for annual report prepared. 8. The question before this court is whether such inquiries could be conducted for the same year twice i.e. one inquiry for quarterly report and another for annual report. 9. In the opinion of this court, once an annual report was already prepared by the audit, there was no occasion to independently conduct an inquiry for quarterly report. As per the reply filed by the respondent, in the annual report, an inquiry conducted for annual report for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83, the charges against two officers namely V.K. Devda and G.S. Singh ware alleged to have sum of Rs. 18,102.45/- however the petitioner has not been held guilty for the said charges while the another person namely, V.K. Devda was held guilty for causing loss of sum of Rs. 18,102.45/- and was directed to deposit the said amount. Another inquiry for the year 1982-83 for a sum of Rs. 18,102.45/- however the petitioner has not been held guilty for the said charges while the another person namely, V.K. Devda was held guilty for causing loss of sum of Rs. 18,102.45/- and was directed to deposit the said amount. Another inquiry for the year 1982-83 for a sum of Rs. 15,590/- was also conducted wherein also the petitioner was not found guilty of the charge. The third inquiry has been conducted on 09.08.1999 for the third quarter of 1981-82 and first quarter of 1982-83. The said order gives a noting that there is no connection with the orders relating to the recovery and the charge levelled against the petitioner. However, there is no document also to prove charge but still he proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty for a sum of Rs. 1,09,934.46/- for the loss caused in the third quarter of 1981-82 and first quarter of 1982-83. Similarly, for the second part, Joint Registrar did not find that the document is tallying nor the facts have been clarified by any officer, in-spite of such observations he proceeded to hold the petitioner and other officers guilty of the loss caused. 10. In the opinion of this court, once in two annual report inquiries, the petitioner has been exonerated, the same officer could not hold petitioner guilty of loss caused in the quarter which is not a part of annual report. Moreover, findings are apparently perverse. Once he reached to the conclusion that facts have not been proved, there is no occasion to hold petitioner guilty. Similarly in the fourth report for the year 1981-82, the petitioner and the other officers have been jointly held guilty for causing loss without identifying loss caused especially by the petitioner. The appeal lying against the said orders has also been decided in the similar fashion. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is satisfied that the proceedings which have been undertaken against the petitioner are wholly unjustified and the conclusions drawn are contrary to findings arrived at by the concerned Joint Registrar. 12. In view thereof, I am inclined to allow this petition and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965. 12. In view thereof, I am inclined to allow this petition and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965. As regards the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation, this court does not find any reason to grant compensation to the petitioner as the action taken by the officers is on account of audit reports and therefore, they were bound to examine and conduct inquiries under Section 74 (2) of the Act of 1965 moreover, even appeals have been filed. The procedure followed may be erroneous and findings on facts may be perverse, however that would not be the reason to grant compensation to the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing the proceedings. 14. No costs. 15. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.