Allahabad High Court
Kumdesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home ... on 3 January, 2012
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 10 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4372 of 2011 Petitioner :- Kumdesh Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Deptt.Of Personnel And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Smt. Arti Ganguly Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Ram Raj Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner, who is posted as Junior Engineer at Meerut Development Authority, Meeruţ, has prayed that the respondents be directed to stop the inquiry forthwith which is being conducted against him on the basis of some complaint made by one Sri Ajay Kumar, as is reflected from the letter dated 28.04.2011, contained as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. Further prayer has been made that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 be directed to comply with the Government Order dated 01.08.1997, which provides that before proceeding with the inquiry on any complaint made, it should be verified from the complainant himself that the complaint has been made by him and further that he is satisfied that the complaint is based on correct facts. The government order dated 09.05.1997 also requires that the complainant, in such a situation, should be asked to submit an affidavit in support of the complaint and should also submit evidence in support thereof.
I have heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel representing State.
The grievance of the petitioner in nutshell is that the complaint made by the said Sri Ajay Kumar was being enquired into under the direction of the State Government though the verification of the contents of the complaint from the complainant was not got done as per procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 01.08.1997. He further submits that on account of non-compliance of the procedure prescribed for inquiring into the complaint as given in the Government Order dated 09.05.1997, the same would be void in the eyes of law and would also violate the petitioner's right to get fair enquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the purpose behind issuing the Government Orders dated 01.08.1997 and 09.05.1997 is to prevent the harassment of government servants on the basis of frivolous and unfounded complaints sometimes made anonymously without disclosing the name and address of the complainant. His further contention is that in case such complaints, without disclosing the name and address of the complainant, are entertained by the State Government and the authorities concerned, the same would instil a sense of apprehension and fear in the mind of government servant concerned which will have the impact of demoralizing the government servant.
Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for Meerut Development Authority and Sri Manjiv Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State have strongly contended that since the complaint made by Ajay Kumar has already been enquired into and the preliminary inquiry report dated 21.02.2011, which was based on the inquiry conducted into the said complaint made by Sri Ajay Kumar, has already been submitted, as such the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive. It has further been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority as well as learned counsel appearing for State that in fact the writ petition was filed on 18.07.2011, though the preliminary inquiry report was submitted on 21.02.2011. Hence, the prayer made in the writ petition is not tenable.
It has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel in the counter affidavit that the preliminary inquiry report so submitted by the Additional Commissioner Meerut Devision, Meerut was considered by the State Government at the appropriate level and the matter was to be placed before the State Level Vigilance Committee which was earlier scheduled to be held on 29.06.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were not in conformity with the Government Order dated 09.05.1997, as such any subsequent action based on the complaint made by Sri Ajay Kumar is not sustainable.
The Court is unable to agree with the contention made by Sri Mishra for the reason that the complaint made by Ajay Kumar on 01.11.2008 was ordered to be enquired into by the State Government vide its order dated 17.02.2009. On the directions so issued by the State Government, vide letter dated 17.2.2009, the preliminary inquiry into the complaint made by Sri Ajay Kumar was already conducted and completed and the report of the same was sent to the State Government way back, vide order dated 21.02.2011. It appears that on the basis of said preliminary inquiry report, the State Government in the department of Housing and Urban Planning took a decision to get the departmental proceedings initiated against the officers/employees of Meerut Development Authority and accordingly, letter to the said effect was written by the State Government on 28.04.2011 requiring the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut to initiate the departmental proceedings against the officers found erring in the matter of allotment of certain properties in the name of petitioner. Further, it appears from a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State that the Government has taken a decision to refer the matter to the State Level Vigilance Committee.
Sequence of events as aforementioned makes it clear that by the time the petitioner approached this Court in the month of July, 2011, seeking direction for stopping the inquiry to be made into the complaint made by Sri Ajay Kumar, the preliminary inquiry was not only ordered by the State Government but in fact it was conducted and completed by the Additional Commissioner (Administrative), Meerut Devision, Meerut. So far as the inference of the petitioner regarding some proceeding against him on the basis of letter of the State Government dated 28.04.2011, as contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition is concerned, suffice would it be to say that the same does not concern the petitioner at all. The petitioner being member of centralized service, could be departmentally proceeded against only by the State Government and not by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner based on the letter of State Government dated 28.04.2011 is unfounded.
Aforementioned facts, as deduced from the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government and Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, do not create any doubt that the writ petition was filed at a much belated stage, hence the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted at this later stage.
Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed.
Before parting with the matter, this court would like to observe that the Government Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997, which encompass group 'Kha' 'Ga' and 'Gha' employees of the State Government also, provide for adequate caution to be taken by the authorities concerned while inquiring into the complaints made against the government officers/employees of different categories. However, from the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the instant case, it is clear that the said procedure as provided in the government orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 was not followed. A perusal of the complaint made by Sri Ajay Kumar which has been annexed as Anneuxre No. 4 to the writ petition reveals that the said complaint does not even bear the address of the complainant. The purpose of issuance of the aforesaid two government orders is not only to safeguard the government officers from unnecessary harassment but also to curb the tendency of making frivolous and anonymous complaints against the government servants. The State Government and its authorities by not following the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid government orders are doing disservice to the society and as such, it would be appropriate to issue a direction to the State Government to ensure that the procedure provided in the Government Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 is adhered to. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the State Government to strictly follow the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid two government orders. Thus, a direction is also issued to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Uttar Pradesh to issue a circular to all concerned for strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid government orders. The said circular shall be issued within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the State Government.
Order Date :- 3.1.2012 Renu Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Department of Personnel, Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Registry of this Court.
Order Date :- 3.1.2012 Renu