Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Shahid vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 July, 2022
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on - 13.7.2022 Delivered on - 29.7.2022 Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42570 of 2008 Petitioner :- Mohammad Shahid Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Singh,K.A. Singh,M.B.Saxena,Phool Singh Yadav,R.P.Mishra,R.P.Singh,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner has filed an amendment application on 6.10.2021 that in pursuance of an order dated 4.10.2021 passed by this Court that "On request, list this case on 8 November 2021 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to file amendment application," raising few averments and grounds.
2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008 and amendment application was filed belatedly on 6.10.2021 i.e. after more than 13 years without any explanation for extraordinary delay. The order dated 4.10.2021 could not be considered to the extent that amendment application was allowed, therefore, the amendment application is rejected. However, learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to raise grounds available in law during his arguments to which learned counsel has no objection.
3. Law on Scope of Review by High Court viz-a-viz Departmental Proceedings' :-
The Law on the above issue is recently reiterated, explained and summarized by a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan; 2022 1 SCC 373. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter :-
23. The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority.
24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.
25. The principles have been culled out by a three Judge Bench of this Court way back in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others wherein it was observed as under:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
26. It has been further examined by this Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another vs. Rajendra Singh 1995(6) SCC 749 as under :-
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."
Facts of present case :-
4. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner while he was working as a Stenographer in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh as there were complaints with regard to the recruitment process of employees at Nagar Panchayat, Kishunpur. An inquiry was conducted by concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur wherein along with other officers, petitioner was also prima facie found to be involved in various irregularities and in pursuance of said preliminary inquiry, petitioner was put under suspension and a charge-sheet was served on 16.11.2005 on following five charges :-
"आरोप संख्या-1 आपने नगर पंचायत किशुनपुर के अध्यक्ष व अधिशाषी अधिकारी पर अनाधिकृत दबाव बनाकर बगैर स्वीकृत पदों के सापेक्ष अपने भाई/रिश्तेदार श्री सलाहउद्दीन पुत्र डा0 गुलाम सरवर निवासी ग्राम जैदपुर पोस्ट हनुमानगंज विकास खण्ड बहादुरपुर तहसील फूलपुर जनपद इलाहाबाद को जलकल लिपिक व श्री शकील अहमद पुत्र श्री दीन मोहम्मद निवासी 58 जेड/1 नेवादा सर्कुलर रोड इलाहाबाद को नायब राजस्व वसूली मुहर्रिर के पद पर दिनांक 01.2.2004 को नियुक्त कराया गया और उक्त अवैध नियुक्तियों को वैधानिक करार दिये जाने के उद्देश्य से उप जिलाधिकारी खागा के हस्ताक्षर से सांसद चुनाव कार्य हेतु उक्त दोनों कथित कर्मचारियों को उप जिलाधिकारी खागा कार्यालय में दिनांक 29.3.2004 को सम्बद्ध करा दिया गया जिसका कोई औचित्य नहीं था क्योंकि तहसील कार्यालय में पर्याप्त स्टाप उपलब्ध था। इस प्रकार आप अपने पद का दुरुपयोग करने व शासन को आर्थिक क्षति पहुचाने के दोषी है।
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है:-
1- अपर जिलाधिकारी फतेहपुर/प्रभारी अधिकारी स्थानीय निकाय की जांच आख्या दिनांक 02.6.2005 एवं 04.6.2005 आरोप संख्या-2 राजकीय कार्य हित में प्रशासनिक आधार पर आपको जिलाधिकारी फतेहपुर के आदेश संख्या 628/एस0टी0 दिनांक 09.6.2005 द्वारा जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी फतेहपुर के साथ सम्बद्ध किया गया था। आपने उक्त आदेश का पालन जहां एक ओर विलम्ब से किया गया वही दूसरी ओर शासनादेशों/परिषदादेशों की पेचदगियों का सहारा लेकर आयुक्त इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद एवं आयुक्त एवं सचिव राजस्व परीषद उत्तर प्रदेश लखनऊ को गुमराह करते हुये जिलाधिकारी फतेहपुर के विरुद्ध प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित 05.7.2005 प्रेषित किये गये। उक्त प्रार्थना पत्रों में निहित आपके मन्तव्य से असहमत होते हुये आयुक्त इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद द्वारा आदेश संख्या 02/9-39-2005 दिनांक 06.10.2005 पारित किया गया जिससे स्पष्ट है कि आप अनुशासित न रहकर उच्च अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध अनावश्यक रुप से लिखा पढ़ी के आदी है।
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है :-
1- आयुक्त इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद को सम्बोधित आपका प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 05.7.2005 2- आयुक्त एवं सचिव राजस्व परिषद, उत्तर प्रेदश अनुभाग-12 लखनऊ को सम्बोधित आपका प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 05.7.2005 3- आयुक्त इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद द्वारा निर्गत आदेश संख्या 02/नौ-39-2005 दिनांक 06.10.2005 आरोप संख्या-3 जिलाधिकारी फतेहपुर के आदेश संख्या 628/एस0टी0 दिनांक 09.6.2005 द्वारा राजकीय कार्य सम्पादन हेतु आपको जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी फतेहपुर के साथ सम्बद्ध किया गया था किन्तु आपने कार्य में रुचि न लेकर उक्त पद को अस्थाई बताते हुये इसे समाप्त किये जाने हेतु प्रमुख सचिव न्याय एवं प्रमुख सचिव वित्त, उत्तर प्रेदश शासन लखनऊ को प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 19 जुलाई 2005 प्रेषित किया जबकि यह पद शासनादेश संख्या डी-2164/सात-वी.एम-6/83 दिनांक 29 सितम्बर 1984 के अन्तर्गत स्थाई घोषित किया गया है। इस प्रकार आप राजकीय कार्यों में रुचि न लेने, उच्च अधिकारियों को गुमराह करने, अनावश्यक रुप से अधिकार सीमा से परे पत्राचार करने व पदीय दायित्वों के निर्वहन में रुचि न रखने आदि के दोषी है।
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है :-
1- प्रमुख सचिव न्याय एवं प्रमुख सचिव वित्त, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन को प्रेषित आपका प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 19.7.2005 2- संयुक्त विधि परामर्शी, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ के शासनादेश संख्या डी-2164/सात-वी.म. 6/83 दिनांक 29 सितम्बर 1984 3- जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी की आख्या दिनांक 12.8.2005 मय संलग्नक आरोप संख्या-4 प्रमुख सचिव न्याय एवं प्रमुख सचिव वित्त, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ को प्रेषित प्रार्थना पत्रों दिनांक 19.7.2005 पर किसी निर्णय की प्रतीक्षा किये बिना दिनांक 20.7.2005 को इं0 मो0 असलम प्रदेश महासचिव भारतीय जनता पार्टी (अल्प संख्यक मोर्चा) उत्तर प्रदेश की ओर से मुख्य सचिव, उ0प्र0 शासन सहित उक्त दोनों अधिकारियों को पत्र प्रेषित कराकर शासन पर अनावश्यक रुप से आशुलिपिक, जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी के पद को समाप्त कराने हेतु राजनैतिक पहल करायी गयी, जो अनुशासन व राजकीय कर्मचारी संहिता के विपरीत है और इसके लिए आप दोषी प्रतीत होते हैं।
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है :-
1- आरोप संख्या-3 के साक्ष्य नम्बर-1 में उल्लिखित प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 19.7.2005 2- इं0 मो0 असलम प्रदेश महासचिव, भा0ज0पा0 (अल्प संख्यक मोर्चा) उत्तर प्रदेश का पत्र दिनांक 20.7.2005 आरोप संख्या-5 जिलाधिकारी फतेहपुर के आदेश संख्या 628/एस0टी0 दिनांक 09.6.2005 द्वारा राजकीय कार्य सम्पादन हेतु आपको जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी फतेहपुर के साथ सम्बद्ध किया गया था। किन्तु उक्त पद पर आपने निष्ठापूर्वक राजकीय कार्यों का सम्पादन नहीं किया और कार्यालय समय का उपयोग अनावश्यक लिखा पढ़ी अथवा व्यक्तिगत कार्य में करते रहे जिससे सम्पष्ट है कि मनवांछित पीठासीन अधिकारी के साथ तैनाती न होने पर आप राजकीय कार्यों में रुचि नहीं रखते हैं।
उक्त आरोप की पुष्टि में निम्नलिखित साक्ष्य पठनीय है :-
1- जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता फौजदारी की रिपोर्ट दिनांक 12.8.2005 आपके ऊपर लगाये गये उक्त आरोपों के सम्बन्ध में आपसे अपेक्षा की जाती है कि आरोप पत्र की प्राप्ति के 15 दिन के अन्दर अपना स्पष्टीकरण सुसंगत साक्ष्यों सहित अधोहस्ताक्षरी जांच अधिकारी (उप जिलाधिकारी सदर फतेहपुर) के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें। अपने कथन/स्पष्टीकरण के समर्थन में यदि किसी व्यक्ति/कर्मचारी/अधिकारी को साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत करना चाहें अथवा उनसे किसी प्रकार का प्रति परीक्षण करना चाहें तो साक्ष्यों आदि का विवरण व पूछे जाने वाले सम्भाव्य प्रश्नों का संक्षिप्त विवरण अपने स्पष्टीकरण में अवश्य उल्लिखित करें।"
5. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply wherein he denied all the charges mainly on the ground that he was not a part of selection process whereby his two relatives along with others were appointed and complaints were considered with regard to two relatives of petitioner only and not with regard to other appointed persons. Therefore, it was a selected proceedings with malice. Petitioner contended in reply that no documents were prepared by petitioner in the entire selection process. So far as other charges were concerned, petitioner contended that he was not lethargic and there was no laxity towards any work. He has worked with sincerity and honesty as a Stenographer to the District Government Advocate (Criminal). Petitioner was not connected or related with the letter alleged to be written by a political person.
6. The Inquiry Officer considered material as well as reply of petitioner and found all the charges to be proved against him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 4.2.2016 to which petitioner replied and reiterate objection and submission submitted earlier.
7. The Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, vide punishment order dated 4.4.2006 after considering the reply and material on record with regard to the charges framed against petitioner, passed impugned order dated 4.4.2006. The Authority has mentioned under the paragraph 'Discussion and Decision' that in regard to charge no.1, no specific evidence was brought on record in support of allegation. So far as charge nos.2, 3 and 5 were concerned, he held that charges were proved and petitioner was found guilty for making unnecessary communications directly to State as well as to higher Officers and he was not diligent towards his Government duties. So far as charge no.4 was concerned, the authority held that it was not specifically proved and finally, the authority observed and passed following operative order with regard to the punishment :-
"उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से यह स्पष्ट है कि अपचारी कर्मचारी श्री मो0 शाहिद, आशुलिपिक मुख्य रुप से अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर सीधे शासन से नीति विषयक पत्राचार करने तथा अन्य आरोपों के दोषी है। अतः श्री मो0 शाहिद को निम्नलिखित दण्ड के साथ उन्हे सेवा में निम्न प्रतिबन्धों सहित बहाल किया जाता है :-
1. अपचारी कर्मचारी जो वेतनमान 5000-8000 में कार्यरत है, को प्रारम्भिक वेतन 5000/- रु0 पर तत्काल प्रभाव से प्रत्यावर्तित किया जाता है। वे बहाली के बाद यही वेतन (रु0 5000/-) तथा सुसंगत भत्ते पायेंगे। तदनुसार उन्हे कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से बहाल किया जाता है।
2. इन्हे निम्न प्रतिकूल प्रविष्टि प्रदान की जाती है।
"श्री मो0 शाहिद द्वारा अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर सीधे शासन की नीति विषयक पत्र लिखा गया जो राजकीय कर्मचारी सेवा नियमावली आचरण के विरुद्ध है। इसके लिये इनकी भर्त्सना की जाती है"
3. निलम्बन कार्य के लिए अलग से शो-काज नोटिस जारी हो ताकि उस अवधि के वेतन का निर्णय हो सके।"
8. In this writ petition, above referred order dated 4.4.2006 as well as order dated 7.6.2006 whereby petitioner was granted only suspension allowance and not salary during the period of suspension as well as impugned order dated 17.6.2008 whereby representation of petitioner against punishment order was rejected by the Chairman, Board of Revenue are impugned.
9. In the above legal and factual background, this Court proceed to consider following rival submissions :-
Submission on behalf of petitioner :-
10. Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that entire proceedings against him was initiated without any basis and there was no evidence or document to prove his participation in the alleged irregular appointment of his two relatives, therefore, all the remaining charges being consequential, were wrongly held to be proved against petitioner. Petitioner was remained diligent and had followed the due process while conducting his official duty and allegations against petitioner of not being diligent towards his duties are not substantiated. The letters which are alleged to be submitted by petitioner are not proved by any independent witness and entire proceedings were concluded without examining any witness as well as explanation afforded by petitioner was totally overlooked. Alternatively, learned counsel submits that even findings against the petitioner be considered to be true still punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate and in case, this Court come to the conclusion that findings cannot be interfered then punishment order may be interfered.
Submission on behalf of State :-
11. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently argued and opposed the submissions and submits that charges mentioned in the charge-sheet were found proved against petitioner though he has not disputed the observation made in punishment order with regard to Charge No.1. However, so far as Charge nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, learned counsel submits that petitioner have acted beyond his jurisdiction and made various communications with regard to policy matters directly with the Higher Officials which was not permissible and petitioner was lethargic and not diligent towards his official duties and indulged in the activities which were contrary to the Employees Model Code as well as all these could come under the scope on indiscipline and misconduct. Learned counsel lastly submitted that punishment awarded to petitioner is proportionate to the charges proved and that this Court has limited power to interfere with the findings and punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings.
Discussions and Conclusion :-
12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
13. It is not in dispute all the five charges were found proved in the inquiry report but disciplinary authority have not found sufficient material to prove Charge Nos.1 & 4, however, remaining charge Nos.2, 3 and 5 were found proved and finally Disciplinary Authority concluded and passed the punishment that :-
"उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से यह स्पष्ट है कि अपचारी कर्मचारी श्री मो0 शाहिद, आशुलिपिक मुख्य रुप से अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर जाकर सीधे शासन से नीति विषयक पत्राचार करने तथा अन्य आरोपों के दोषी है।"
14. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby Charge No.1 which was the major allegation against petitioner was not found to be proved in absence of sufficient evidence as well as Charge No.4 i.e. to put pressure on the authorities and officials by political pressure was also not found to be proved and it was observed that : -
"अतः यह स्पष्ट रुप से नहीं कहा जा सकता कि श्री मो0 शाहिद द्वारा राजनैतिक दबाव डलवाया गया।"
15. Learned counsel for petitioner has not argued with regard to any irregularity in the procedure of departmental proceedings. Therefore, as held in Ram Karan (Supra), this Court in the writ jurisdiction has limited scope and for that evidence against petitioner with regard to Charge Nos.2, 3 and 5, this Court found that there are sufficient material which has been correctly appreciated in the departmental proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority that petitioner was not enough diligent towards his duties as well as he was indulged in communicating directly with the State Authorities which was not permissible under the Service Model Code. Therefore, I do not find that there was no evidence with regard to Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 5.
16. Now this Court proceeds to consider the last argument of learned counsel for petitioner that punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved and that petitioner could be awarded lesser punishment or a minor punishment. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner was about 48 years when this writ petition was filed in the year 2008, therefore, petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of this writ petition. The punishment awarded was permanent reversion to lower scale, therefore, petitioner has suffered huge financial loss. Therefore, I am of the view that punishment is shockingly disproportionate, however, as held in Ram Karan (Supra), in these circumstances, the matter has to be remanded back to the authorities concerned to take a fresh decision.
17. Therefore, while confirming the findings arrived in the disciplinary proceedings against petitioner, punishment order is interfered and the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision with regard to the punishment. It is expected that the decision shall be taken, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months and consequence of it will follow.
18. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022 Rishabh [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]