Allahabad High Court
Prem Chand vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 July, 2019
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 13.3.2019 Delivered on 10.7.2019 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 276 of 2004 Petitioner :- Prem Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Dwivedi, Anil Kumar Singh, B.B.Paul, C.S.C., V.S.Dwivedi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for respondent-4 and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. By means of present writ petition, sole petitioner, Prem Chand has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) whereby recovery of Rs. 1,56,938.50/- has been ordered from petitioner.
3. Facts in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer and remained posted in Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "ADA") between 1992-99. A lay out plan in respect of Bungalow No. 11 Muir Road was submitted by Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti (hereinafter referred to as "Awas Samiti") through its Secretary. In that respect, petitioner made an enquiry and submitted report which was approved by Superior Authorities. On 06th May, 1999, petitioner was transferred from ADA to Kanpur Nagar Nigam. A letter was issued to petitioner on 19.07.2000 by Secretary, Nagar Vikas stating that a drain (Nala) was constructed pursuant to direction given by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2000 in Public Interest Litigation No. 14180 of 1997 and in that regard, a departmental enquiry is proposed against petitioner. Secretary, ADA was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It was mentioned in the said letter that in the Plan submitted by Awas Samiti, there was no provision of sewers/drains for discharge of water though it was necessary as per Masterplan of 2001 sanctioned for Allahabad and it has caused overflow of water on roads, damaging the same, besides causing otherwise pollution.
4. Petitioner was also served with a charge-sheet dated 31.07.2000 containing following two charges:-
^^vkjksi la[;k&1 ;g fd vki bykgkckn fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa voj vfHk;Urk ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks rks vkidh laLrqfr ij caxyk ua0&11 es;ks jksM dh i=koyh la[;k 5@Hkw0fo0@fo izk0 @ 93&94] lfpo y{eh egdkjh vkokl fy0 ds vkoklh; ryiV vuqeksfnr ekufp= Lohd`r fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij vkius fnukad 20-10-95 dks lhoj ds fMLiksty rFkk tulHkj.k bR;kfn rFkk vkUrfjd fodkl dh O;oLFkk;ksa iznf'kZr fd;s tkus dh vkifRr yxk;h gS i=koyh ij vki }kjk fnukad 22-9-95 dks okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk :0 5]78]358]00 dh x;hA iqu% fnukad 31-10-95 dks okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk :0 5]72]756]40 dh x;hA fnukad 2-4-96 dks okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk ijfeV 'kqYd ds :i esa :0 5]00]040]75 dh x;h gSA ,oa fnukad 15-5-96 dks ijfeV 'kqYd dh x.kuk :0 2]96]688]40 dh x;h gS okg~; fodkl dh x.kuk ekSds dh vko';drk ds vuqlkj u djs :0 6000 izfr oxZ eh0 dh nj ls dh x;h gSA i=koyh ds rduhdh ijh{k.k ,oa ekSds dh fLFkfr ds vuq:i ljQs'k Msust ,oa lhoj ds okg~; fuLrkj.k dk dksbZ izcU/k lqfuf'pr ugha fd;k x;k gS ukfy;ksa ,oa lhoj ds okg~; fMLpktZ dh dksbZ O;oLFkk ryiV ekufp= esa vafdr ugha gS] tcfd bykgkckn la'kksf/kr egk;kstuk 2001 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ekufp= esa ukfy;ksa] lhoj vkfn iznf'kZr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A mijksDr ds okg~; fydst ij fopkj fd;s fcuk vki }kjk ys vkmV Lohd`r djus dh laLrqfr dh x;h gS dkyksuh ds fuekZ.k ds i'pkr lM+d ij ikuh cg jgk gS rFkk lhoj ds fMlisty dh dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tufgr ;kfpdk la[;k 14180@ 97 bQrs[kkj vgen [kku cuke ftyk eftLV~sV o vU; esa mDr izdj.k esa izkf/kdj.k ds fo:) dBksj :[k viuk;k x;k gSA {ks= esa rSukr rduhdh voj vfHk;Urk gksus ds ukrs vkidk ;g fof/kd nkf;Ro Fkk fd okg~; fodkl ,oa ckgjh fydst dk ekSds dh fLFkfr ds vuqlkj ijh{k.k dj viuh vk[;k nsrsA vki }kjk bl rduhdh i{k dh vogsyuk dh x;h rFkk okLrfod okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk ugha dh x;h ftlls tu lk/kkj.k dh vlqfo/kk ds lkFk&lkFk izkf/kdj.k /kwfey gqbZA vkjksi la[;k&2 ;g fd tufgr ;kfpdk la[;k 14180@ 97 bQrs[kkj vgen [kku cuke ftyk eftLV~sV o vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k ds dze esa izkf/kdj.k dks vius O;; ij mijksDr ;ksu ls eueksgu ikdZ rd ikuh dh fudklh ds ukys dk fuekZ.k djuk iM+ jgk gS ftlls O;;uqeku :0 7]67]502]45 fnukad 2-2-2000 dks Lohd`r fd;k x;k gS vki }kjk vkjksi la[;k 1 ds vuqlkj okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh okLrfod x.kuk u dj ,oa ukyh rFkk lhoj ds ckgjh fydst dh vuns[kh djus dh dkj.k okg~; fodkl 'kqYd okLrfod x.kuk ds vk/kkj ij tk ugha djk;k x;k rFkk fnukad 22-9-95 dks okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk :0 5]78]358-00 fnukad 31-10-95 dks okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk 5]72]756-40 fnukad 2-4-96 dks ijfeV 'kqYd ds :i esa okg~; fodkl 'kqYd dh x.kuk 2]96]688-40 okLrkfodrk ds vk/kkj ij u djds Q~ysV jsV ds vk/kkj ij dh x;hA vUrr% izkf/kdj.k dks"k esa ijfeV 'kqYd ds :i esa :0 2]96]688-40 iSls tek gqvk] ek= ukys ds fuekZ.k ij izkf/kdj.k }kjk :0 7]67]502-45 O;; gks jgk gS vkids }kjk dh x;h mDr vfu;ferrk ls izkf/kdj.k dks :) 4]70]814-05 dh vkfFkZd {kfr igqWaph gS] ftlds fy, vki izFke n`"V;k nks"kh ik;s x;s gSa rFkk mDr vkfFkZd {kfr dh vkils vuqikfrd olwyh fd;s tkus dk Hkh izFke n`"V;k vkSfpR; fon~eku gSA"
"Charge-1 That whilst you being posted as Junior Engineer at the Allahabad Development Authority, File No. 5/Bhu.Vi./Vi.Pra./93-94, the map of the residential layout plan of Lakshmi Mahkari Awas Ltd. at the bungalow No. 11, Mayo Road, was approved on your recommendation. On the file, you have on 20.10.1995 raised objections over disposal of sewage and harvesting water etc. and over displaying internal arrangement of developments. On the file, you have on 22.09.1995 calculated external development fee as Rs. 5,78,358.00/-. Again on 31.10.1995, you calculated external development fee to the tune of Rs. 5,72,756.40/-. On 02.04.1996, the development fee has been calculated as permit fee being an amount of Rs. 5,00,040.75/- and again on 15.05.1996, the permit fee has been calculated as an amount of Rs. 2,96,688.40/-. The development fee not being calculated as per the requirements at the spot has been charged at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per square metre. According to the situation at the spot and technical examination of the file, no proper arrangement for disposal of surface drainage and sewage has been ensured. External discharge of drains and sewage has not been shown in the layout plan despite the fact that, as per the provisions of master plan-2001, drains, sewage system etc. are required to be shown in the layout plan. Without considering the external leakage, the recommendation to approve the layout plan has been made by you. Once the construction of the colony was over, the water is flowing over the road, and there is no proper arrangement for the sewage disposal. In the Public Interest Litigation No. 14180/97, Iftekhar Ahmad Vs District Magistrate and others, the Hon'ble High Court has taken a serious note of the aforesaid matter. Being a technical Junior Engineer deputed in the area, you were under a legal obligation to have inspected the external development and leakage at the spot and then to have given your report; but this technical aspect has been ignored by you and actual external development fee has not been calculated, thereby tarnishing the image of the Authority besides causing discomfort to the general public.
Charge - 2 That in pursuance to the order passed in the Pubic Interest Litigation No. 14180/1997, Iftekhar Ahmad Vs District Magistrate and others, the Authority, on its own expenses, is being constrained to get a drain constructed from the aforesaid zone to Manmohan Park for the drainage of waste water. The estimated expenditure thereon to the tune of Rs. 7,67,502.45/- has been approved on 02.02.2000. As mentioned in charge-1, because of your refraining from calculating the actual external development and ignoring the external leakage from the drain and sewage, the external development fee could not be ascertained on actual calculation. The calculation of external development fee to be Rs. 5,78,358.00/- on 22.09.1995, Rs. 5,72,756.40/- on 31.10.1995 and Rs. 2,96,688.40/- as permit fee on 02.04.1996 was made not on the actual basis but at the flat rates. Finally, Rs 2,96,688.40/- as permit fee was deposited with the exchequer of the Authority; and Rs. 7,67,502.45/- is being spent on the construction of the drain only. As a result of the said irregularity done by you, a financial loss to the tune of Rs. 4,70,814.05/- has been caused to the Authority for which you have been found prima facie guilty, and prima facie justification is there for proportional realisation of the said financial loss from you.""
(English Translation by Court)
5. Petitioner replied charge-sheet vide letter dated 10.10.2000. An Enquiry Report was submitted by Secretary, ADA (Enquiry Officer) vide letter dated 31.05.2001 holding both the charges proved and recommending that since petitioner, the then Chief Architect and Assistant Engineer are equally responsible, therefore, as are entitled for proportionate punishment of recovery. A copy of Enquiry Report was supplied to petitioner along with a show-cause notice dated 28.08.2001 issued by State Government. Petitioner submitted reply stating that he has already retired on 31.07.2001 and loss if any was suffered after petitioner's transfer from ADA to Kanpur, hence, petitioner is not responsible for the same. Thereafter, impugned order of punishment has been passed directing for total recovery of Rs. 4,70,814/- out of which 1/3 being, proportional amount, has been sought to be recovered from petitioner.
6. Mr. Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that whatever report submitted by petitioner has been approved by Superior Authority, therefore, petitioner cannot be held guilty and he has been illegally punished.
7. However, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that the map, on which petitioner submitted report, was not in accordance with Masterplan, 2001 and outlay did not contain plan for discharge of water outside the planned site. It is true that plan was also approved by Superior Officers but petitioner was also responsible to submit a report which was not consistent to the requirement of Masterplan, 2001, hence, cannot absolve of his responsibility. In the present case, respondents have already taken a lenient view by holding that since three persons are equally responsible, therefore, proportionate recovery is to be made and only 1/3 amount of total loss has been sought to be recovered from petitioner. No procedural error in the enquiry could be pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner and, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with impugned order.
8. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Siddhant Sahu