Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2398 (ALL)

Amita Tripathi @ Neha Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2024-11-23

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2024
JUDGMENT : Earlier, when the order dated 11.11.2024 directing the respondent No. 5 to file his personal affidavit was not complied with, this Court, by order dated 21.11.2024, directed personal appearance of the officer concerned explaining the reason of initiation of another inquiry despite stay of third de novo investigation. 2. Today, personal affidavit of Shri N.B. Savita, presently posted as Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has been filed in Court which is taken on record. The said officer is also personally present before us. 3. The grievance raised by means of this writ petition is to the effect that despite culmination of inquiries, one after another, in favour of the petitioner, the respondent-officers are bent upon to hold de novo inquiry which is an abuse of the process of law. Considering the material on record and the arguments advanced, this Court passed following order on 8.8.2024 : ''Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks and is granted permission to carry out necessary corrections in the writ petition including the prayer clause. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Steps be taken within a week. List this matter on September 2, 2024 as fresh, by which date learned Standing Counsel may get instructions in the matter. In the meantime, Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur is directed to stay his hands with regard to third de novo investigation.'' 4. On 11.11.2024, the Court was informed about initiation of another inquiry in violation of interim order passed on 8.8.2024. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 i.e. Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, was directed to file his personal affidavit. In the personal affidavit, a stand has been taken substantially to the effect that the inquiries conducted earlier were initiated on the complaint of one Dalveer Singh which were distinct in nature and unrelated to the instant writ petition whereas the action taken now is pursuant to two fresh independent complaints submitted by Smt. Anupam Pal and Dalveer Singh. The Court may note that, in sum and substance, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are in respect of alleged financial irregularities committed qua construction/development of some cattle shelter shed and the inquiries held earlier were also in respect of same allegations but had ended in favour of the petitioner having found no irregularities on her part. 5. The Court may note that, in sum and substance, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are in respect of alleged financial irregularities committed qua construction/development of some cattle shelter shed and the inquiries held earlier were also in respect of same allegations but had ended in favour of the petitioner having found no irregularities on her part. 5. As far as reason behind going ahead with the fresh inquiry despite interim order dated 8.8.2024 operating in the instant writ petition, a copy of the letter dated 13.9.2024 annexed as 'Annexure SA-3' to the supplementary-affidavit was referred to during the course of arguments. The letter reads as under : 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid letter would show that despite having full knowledge of the interim order dated 8.8.2024, Shri N.B. Savita, the officer who is present in Court, directed the Superintending Engineer (Rural), Engineering Department, Kanpur Division, Kanpur to hold another inquiry by interpreting the communication made by Chief Standing Counsel of this Court vide his letter dated 29.8.2024 that directions have been issued not to conduct inquiry in relation to IGRS reference No. 80016024000589 only. Though the letter of Chief Standing Counsel dated 29.8.2024 was shown to be annexed to the officer's letter dated 13.9.2024, its copy has not been placed before this Court nor has been annexed to the officer's personal affidavit filed by the officer today. Under such circumstances, the Court has all reason to believe that the officer is trying to shield his action of violating the interim order passed by this Court by taking aid of letter written by Chief Standing Counsel without bringing the same on record. This is a clear case where adverse inference must be drawn against the officer for not placing the relevant document before the Court. 7. Apart from the above, the stand taken in the personal affidavit as regards the distinct nature of complaints, the Court may notice that action impugned in the present writ petition is in pursuance of complaint moved by Smt. Anupam Pal (respondent No. 6), wife of Uday Pal Singh (respondent No. 7). The respondent No. 7 is admittedly posted as Sub Inspector, Jalaun which is apparent from an endorsement made at the top of the complaint moved by respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner. The endorsement reads as under : ''CDO Mr. The respondent No. 7 is admittedly posted as Sub Inspector, Jalaun which is apparent from an endorsement made at the top of the complaint moved by respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner. The endorsement reads as under : ''CDO Mr. Uday Pal Singh, who is a Sub Inspector posted in Jalaun raised very serious allegation. So pls send ADO on sight to verify if the complaint is right or wrong.'' (It appears that the word ''sight'' is wrongly mentioned. The correct word is ''site''). 8. The statement contained in the personal affidavit filed today to the effect that earlier action was taken pursuant to a complaint moved by Dalveer Singh, not party to the writ petition and further, the same was in relation to some irregularities committed by the petitioner in the year 2019-2020, having no concern with the allegations levelled now. This Court has perused the 'Annexure 3', annexed to the personal affidavit which refers to not only financial year 2019-2020 but also financial year 2020-2021, inquiries initiated and culminated thereafter including the inquiry report dated 8.3.2024. This Court has also examined the fact that respondent No. 6, i.e. the complainant, is none other than sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of Dalveer Singh as is mentioned in the complaint filed by Dalveer Singh himself. 9. In view of the above, it is apparently clear that Shri N.B. Savita, presently posted as Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur is treating himself to be not only above the law but also as an appellate authority sitting over the stay order passed by this Court. He has not only clearly violated the interim order dated 8.8.2024 but, even thereafter, did not file his personal affidavit pursuant to order dated 11.11.2024 and has appeared today only when the Court directed his personal appearance. The audacity of the officer goes to the extent that in order to shield his action of going ahead despite an interim order being operative, he has attempted to put the blame squarely upon the Chief Standing Counsel of this Court who takes care of the interest of the State and its machinery in all proceedings before this Court. The attempt is to somehow impress this Court as if it was the Chief Standing Counsel who directly/indirectly/expressly/impliedly directed the officer to go ahead with the inquiry though the facts are absolutely contrary to the same. 10. The attempt is to somehow impress this Court as if it was the Chief Standing Counsel who directly/indirectly/expressly/impliedly directed the officer to go ahead with the inquiry though the facts are absolutely contrary to the same. 10. Though 'Annexure 7' to the personal affidavit is a copy of letter dated 21.11.2024 written by Shri N.B. Savita to the Superintending Engineer cancelling the earlier letter dated 13.9.2024 with immediate effect with a further direction that no inquiry be conducted, this Court is of the view that it is merely an eye-wash and a device to show that this Court's order has now been complied with. However, it is patently clear that this has been done by the officer because of the order dated 21.11.2024 directing his personal appearance. 11. The overall conduct of the officer leaves no room for doubt that he has abused his position and was dancing to the tune played by the respondent No. 7, a Sub-Inspector and treating himself to be above the law with a further attempt to bring the Chief Standing Counsel into hot waters. Such malpractices and reprehensible conduct cannot be tolerated by this Court. 12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Shri N.B. Savita, presently posted as Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The State Government shall be at liberty to make interim arrangements for the functional discharge of duties concerning the post of Joint Development Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. 13. List this petition in top ten cases before appropriate Bench on 16.1.2025. 14. On the next date fixed, the learned Standing Counsel shall place before this Court the action taken by the State Government pursuant to and in furtherance of this order. 15. Registrar (Compliance), High Court, Allahabad is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary (U.P. Government, Lucknow) for immediate action in compliance of this order.