Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1167 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Chandra Lal Sonkar

2022-07-26

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the State is directed against the judgment/order dated 25.1.2022 rendered by U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1528 of 2021. 2. The opposite party feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal from service had instituted the claim petition under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 and upon exchange of the pleadings before the Tribunal, the case was contested and challenge to the order of dismissal from service was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the following order: “Petition is allowed. Punishment order dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure-1) is quashed with all consequential benefits. It will be open to the respondents to pass some other appropriate punishment against petitioner, if they are advised to do so. No costs.” 3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party was proceeded against for misconduct with the issuance of a charge sheet on 7.10.2020. The charges were levelled against the opposite party which are reproduced in the impugned judgment. The opposite party submitted his reply in response to the charge sheet wherein all the four charges were denied. 4. The enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 1.3.2021 based on which a show cause notice was issued on 22.3.2021. The petitioner again submitted his reply on 1.4.2021 and final punishment order of dismissal from service was passed on 22.7.2021 which was assailed before the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition. 5. The Tribunal while adjudicating upon the case, dealt with the rival contentions and recorded its findings in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the impugned judgment. 6. For our consideration, the opinion recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 28 is reproduced hereunder: “28. In the instant case, petitioner has admitted having made calls to Usman and Islam. There is not even an iota of evidence that petitioner in any manner had helped them or any relation with them. He was not posted in the court of special judge Anti Dacoity. It is his case that no officer from prosecution cadre is posted in the said court. ADGC drawn from bar is posted in the said court. There is no allegation that taking advantage of the position, he tried to influence court There is no allegation of any financial transaction or extraneous factor while making calls. It is his case that no officer from prosecution cadre is posted in the said court. ADGC drawn from bar is posted in the said court. There is no allegation that taking advantage of the position, he tried to influence court There is no allegation of any financial transaction or extraneous factor while making calls. On the other hand entire evidence lends support to the defence case that in order to help policed people, he was trying to mediate. In the absence of mens rea it is not possible to hold any employee guilty of misconduct.” 7. It is in the light of paragraph 28 extracted above that we had put a definite question to learned counsel for the State as to what essentially constituted the misconduct against the opposite party for which the disciplinary proceedings were drawn except procuring call details which have neither diminished the confidentiality of the State or a proceeding drawn by the State against any culprit nor anything in the matter of causing a financial loss was pointed out on the basis of any material whatsoever. 8. The call details do not seem to be a collection of any incriminating material except something which may doubt the employer of a person in his personal liberty being in contact with another person of doubtful credentials. 9. In this situation mere doubt on the part of the disciplinary authority unless supported by a definite damage or loss caused to the State, cannot be evaluated to be a misconduct. Even the integrity of a public servant proceeded against during this period cannot be said to be under any cloud unless the contents of conversation were ascertained for arriving at a satisfaction to support the public cause. We must emphasize that what lies within the mind of a public servant or any human being is beyond the scrutiny of law unless it affects the sovereign order through an act of commission or omission. In the case at hand we are convinced that the use of artificial device cannot be construed beyond a harmless mental activity. 10. We must emphasize that what lies within the mind of a public servant or any human being is beyond the scrutiny of law unless it affects the sovereign order through an act of commission or omission. In the case at hand we are convinced that the use of artificial device cannot be construed beyond a harmless mental activity. 10. That being so, the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal for setting aside the impugned order of dismissal from service is a possible view and the rationality thereof, merely on the strength of a doubt, does not support the State to assail the judgment impugned before the Court on the ground that the same suffers from an illegality calling for interference. 11. Learned counsel for the State has referred to a judgment rendered by the apex court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Another, (1994) 2 SCC 537 . 12. We have carefully gone through the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the State and we find that the judgment cited before us related to a definite charge of financial misappropriation which is not a case before us. The judgment (supra) does not lend support to the argument put forth. 13. On a close scrutiny of the material placed on record we also gather that the occasion to refer to the call details arose on account of a proceeding relating to an incident of loot having been lodged against some police officials by wife of one of the history-sheeters. 14. The opposite party had put forth his explanation of entering into an amicable settlement between police officials and the complainant and probability of such a conversation cannot be ruled out in the normal course. All these explanations were not considered by the disciplinary authority in the right perspective and there was no application of mind on such explanations at all. 15. This relevant aspect of the matter weighed in the mind of the Tribunal while appreciating the arguments put forth and the material placed on record. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in our considered view, does not call for any interference. We also expect that the liberty granted by the Tribunal be weighed in the light of observations made above. 16. Thus, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment and the writ petition is accordingly rejected.