Allahabad High Court
Piyush Verma vs State Of U.P.And Another on 19 October, 2020
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32071 of 2013 Petitioner :- Piyush Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Srivastava,Akhilesh Tripathi,Satish Chandra Mishra,Udai Karan Saxena,Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,Brajesh Kumar,Manish Goyal,Samir Sharma,Yashwant Varma Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Srivastava along with Sri Akhilesh Tripathi for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra for respondent.
2. By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 24.4.2013 by which the petitioner was subjected to punishment of reduction in rank to place him on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The challenge is even to the inquiry report dated 11.10.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is based on perverse finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge no.1. Elaborating the facts of this case, it is stated that out of seven charges levelled against the petitioner, only two charges were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. So far as charge no.1 is concerned, it is based on perverse finding and otherwise it was not properly framed thus remain vague. A vague charge levelled against the petitioner should not have been the basis for punishment.
4. The argument has been raised regarding perversity in the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It is stated that statement of the stenographer were not sufficient to prove the charge. Finding has been recorded contrary to what was stated by the stenographer in his statement during the course of inquiry. He never stated regarding dictation of the judgement on or before the final hearing and in fact the hearing of the case was not concluded on 15.1.2009.
5. It is stated that a criminal trial was not posted before him prior to its transfer by the District Judge. In fact the trial should not have been transferred to the petitioner because as per the order of High Court, it should have been by the District Judge alone. In any case, when the trial was transferred ignoring the order of the High Court, petitioner was left with no option but to proceed further with the trial without haste. The judgement was not dictated prior to completion of the arguments, yet referring to the statement of the stenographer, a perverse finding has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer about dictation of judgement prior to its final hearing. It is not that petitioner decided the matter for extraneous consideration. The allegation of extraneous consideration could not be proved yet an order of punishment has been passed.
6. It is further stated that the punishment order for reduction of rank is disproportionate to the allegation made against the petitioner. Out of seven charges, only two charges were found proved and was not of such nature where the extreme punishment of reduction of rank could have been inflicted, thus the impugned order deserves to be interfered even on the aforesaid ground.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further made a reference of Article 311 of the Constitution to stress upon that before imposition of punishment, a second show cause notice of hearing on the proposed punishment was required to be served. It was not served thus even the Constitutional mandate has not have been followed by the competent authority while inflicting the punishment. Thus on that ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the issues raised before us during the course of arguments.
9. It is case where a judicial officer was served with a charge sheet containing seven charges. An Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. In the inquiry the administration led its evidence which includes the statement of stenographer referred by the counsel for the petitioner. In the inquiry two charges were found proved which are as under:-
1. Firstly that during the period 2008-2009, while you were posted as Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2 Baghpat, Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2006 State Vs. Sanjay and others and Sessions Trial No. 566 of 2007, State Vs. Gajendra was pending in your court and the above sessions trial was withdrawn by Hon'ble High Court vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No. 239/2008 and it was directed to be decided by Session Judge himself but you decided the trial vide your order dated 23.1.2009, in an unfair and unjustified manner and decided the case for no valid grounds against all judicial norms, propriety and judicial discipline, in an irresponsible and improper manner amounting to misuse of the process of law in a gross dereliction of your duties presumably with a view to provide undue benefit to a party which leads to a reasonable inference of having been influenced by extraneous consideration whereas, working as judicial officer, you were duty bound to perform your duties sincerely, fairly and honestly, which you failed to discharge sincerely, honestly and fairly and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to your duties and thus you have committed a misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956.
The documentary evidence, which is proposed to be adduced in support of the aforesaid charge, is as follows:
1. Copy of the letter dated 03.12.2009, sent by the District Judge, Baghpat, to Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad.
2. Copy of the statement of Sri Vijay Dhar Dubey, Stenographer, Civil Court, Baghpat.
And
3. Copy of the order-sheet and papers of S.T. No. 380 of 2006 State Vs. Sanjay & others.
Oral evidence proposed to be recorded during the course of enquiry is as follows:
1. Statement of Sri S.P. Singh the then District Judge, Baghpat.
2. Statement of Sri Vijay Dhar Dubey, Stenographer, Civil Court, Baghpat.
And
3. Statement of the then Reader, posted in the Court of Additional District Judge, (F.T.C. No. 2), Baghpat, during the period January, 2009.
2...
3. Thirdly that on 22.8.2009 at 4.45 p.m. you approached to the Chamber of the District Judge, Baghpat and asked him not to take round of Courts and campus and assure you not to give adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Remarks, which is found to unbecoming of an upright Judicial Officer, thereby you have committed the act of Insubordination and misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
The documentary evidence, which is proposed to be adduced in support of the aforesaid charge, is as follows:
1. Copy of the report dated 29.8.2009 submitted by the District Judge, Baghpat.
Oral evidence proposed to be recorded during the course of enquiry is as follows:
1. Statement of Sri S.P. Singh, the then District Judge, Baghpat.
And
2. Statement of Sri Mohd. Adil, 1st Additional Distt. Judge, Baghpat.
10. According to the counsel for petitioner, the allegation of disposal of the case in a haste is not made out and for that we need to elaborate the facts. It is a case where a trial was pending before the trial court which was ordered to be tried and decided by the district court. The District Judge transferred the case to the petitioner for the trial of the case. After transfer of the case, petitioner said to have acted in unfair manner and for that caused impropriety with extraneous consideration.
11. The petitioner has challenged the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer alleging it to be perverse because the stenographer never stated about the dictation of judgement prior to final argument. The inquiry officer yet recorded finding that dictation of the judgement was given on different dates in January 2009 and was lastly on 15.1.2009 wherein the argument was not even completed by the aforesaid dated rather the matter was fixed for 20.1.2009 and when arguments could not be completed then it was kept on 23.1.2009. Whether the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is perverse or not, we have gone through the statement of the stenographer, who has categorically stated that dictation of the judgement was given on 3.1.2009 and thereafter on 9.1.2009, 14.1.2009 and 15.1.2009 and dictation of the judgement was completed on 19.1.2009 other than the operative portion. The order sheet available before the Inquiry Officer shows that even on 20.1.2009, the arguments were not completed and matter was deferred for 23.1.2009.
12. It would be appropriate to quote the statement of the stenographer to find out whether he made statement and was sufficient to prove the charges. The statement of the stenographer is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
ih0 MCyw0 & 2 uke lk{kh& fot;/kj nwcs in& LVsuks orZeku rSukrh & ,0 Mh0 ts0 ,Q0 Vh0 lh0 f}rh; ckxirA l'kiFk C;ku fd;k fd eS ekg tuojh 2009 es Rofjr U;k;ky; la0&2 esa vk'kqfyfid ds #i esa dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj ml le; mDr U;k;ky; esa Jh ih;w"k oekZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds #i esa dk;Zjr FksA Jh ih;w"k oekZ }kjk eq>s ,l0 Vh0 ua0 380@06 o ,l0 Vh0 la0 566@07 jkT; Ikzzfr lat; vkfn o jkT; izfr KkusUnz lEcfU/kr v0 la0 216@06] vUrxZr /kkjk 147]148]149]302 Hkk0 na0 la0 Fkkuk ckxir ds fu.kZ; dh fMDVs'ku gsrq vyx ls 'kkVZgS.M uksVcqd ykus ds fy, o dsoy mijksDr ijh{k.kksa dk fu.kZ; fy[kus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA eSus ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds funZs'k ds vuqikyu esa U;k;ky; dh lkekU; 'kkVZgS.M cqd ls vykok mDr fMDVs'ku gsrq vkjf{kr 'kkVZgS.M uksV cqd rS;kj dh ftlesa mijksDr l= ijh{k.kksa dk fu.kZ; ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds fMDVs'ku ij fy[kk gSA mDr 'kkVZgS.M uksVcqd Jheku th ds vkns'kkuqlkj vius lkFk ysdj vk;k gwa] tks bl le; esjs lkeus gSA mDr l= ijh{k.kksa ds fu.kZ; dk fMDVs'ku ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 3-1-2009 dks izkjEHk fd;k x;k FkkA mlds ckn fnukad 9-1-2009] 14-1-2009 o 15-1-2009 dks fMDVs'ku nsrs gq, 15-1-2009 dks fu.kZ; dk iw.kZ fMDVs'ku ns fn;k FkkA fu.kZ; ds vkijsfVo ikVZ dk fMDVs'ku esjh 'kkVZgS.M cqd es ugh gS D;ksafd eSus ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds ekSf[kd funsZ'kkuqlkj Lor% vafdr dj fn;k FkkA l= ijh{k.k la0 380@06 o 566@07 mijksDr dk fu.kZ; lesfdr fMDVsV fd;k x;k gS tks fnukad 3-1-2009 ls izkjEHk djds 15-1-09 dks iw.kZ djk fn;k x;k FkkA 'kkVZgS.M uksVcqd dks eS vius gLrk{kjksa ls lR;kfir djrk gwa tks mijksDr fu.kZ; dh fMDVs'ku gsrq Jh oekZ us vyx ls cukus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA x x x x x x ftjg eSus tks C;ku izkjfEHkd tkap es 2-12-2009 dks fn;k Fkk ml le; ftyk tt ds pSEcj esa tuin U;k;k/kh'k Jh ,l0 ih0 flag] lsfdUM DydZ vkSj ,0 Mh0 ts0 izFke Jh eks0 vkfny FksA eq>s ;g ;kn ugh jgrk gS fd lky Hkj igys vf/kdkjh us tks fMDVs'ku vius ?kj ij fn;k gS og losjs fn;k Fkk ;k 'kke dksA iz0% D;k fnukad 2-12-2009 dk C;ku rqEgsa cksyus dk ekSdk nsdj fy[kk;k x;k Fkk ;k ugh \ mRrj& ;g xyr gS eq>ls iwNk x;k Fkk vkSj rc fy[kk x;k FkkA esjh] Mk;jh esa C;ku 15 rkjh[k dk fy[kk gS blh vk/kkj ij eS dg jgk gwa fd ;g fMDVs'ku eq>s losjs fn;k x;k FkkA eSus 2-12-2009 dks tks C;ku fn;k Fkk oks eSus LosPNk ls fn;k FkkA esjh LVsuks Mk;jh ftlesa l= ijh{k.k 566@2007 o l= ijh{k.k 380@2006 dk fu.kZ; fy[kk gS og bl le; ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa gSA fQj dgk fd tuin U;k;k/kh'k Jh ,l0 ih0 flag us eq>ls ysdj lhy djds vius ikl j[k fy;k Fkk eS ugh tkurk fd ;g Mk;jh bl le; dgka gSA eq>s ;kn ugh gS fd mDr Mk;jh esa ,d rkjh[k dks tks fMDVs'ku fn;k x;k gS og ml fnu dk iwjk okD; fy[kk gS ;k v/kwjk okD; fy[kk gSA eSus vkt tks C;ku fn;k gS og ckr lgh gS eq>ls dksbZ tcjnLrh C;ku ugh fy;k FkkA lk{kh dks ,d Vsi fjdkfMZax lquokbZ xbZ ftldks lqudj lk{kh us dgk fd blesa esjh vkokt gSA bl Vsi fjdkfMZM vkokt esa eSus ,slk dqN ugh dgk gS fd eSus ftyk tt ds ncko esa ;g c;ku fn;k FkkA iz0% Jh oh0 ih0 ikBd us tc ,l0 ,0 vks0 dh csVh ds izdj.k eas tkap dh rks vkius Jh oh0 ih0 ikBd dks ;g crk;k Fkk fd ,l0 ,0 vks0 dh csVh dHkh esjs U;k;ky; esa dke djus ugh vk;h Fkh fdUrq oh0 ih0 ikBd us ;g C;ku ugh fy[kkA ;g ckr lgh gS ;k xyr \ mRrj & eSus Jh oh0 ih0 ikBd dks ;g crk;k Fkk fd ,l0 ,0 vks0 dh csVh tks ckxir esa vf/koDrk gS] og vkids U;k;ky; esa dHkh ugh vk;h D;ksafd mldk dksbZ dke ml U;k;ky; eas ugh FkkA eq>s ugh ekywe dh ;g ckr Jh oh0 ih0 ikBd us esjs C;kuksa esa fy[kk gS ;k ughA vkt eS tks LVsuks Mk;jh yk;k gwa og 2-1-2009 ls ysdj 19-2-2009 rd ds vkns'kksa vkSj fu.kZ;ksa ls lEcfU/kr gS tks Jh fi;w"k oekZ eq>s fMDVs'ku nsrs FksA l= ijh{k.k la[;k 566@07 o l= ijh{k.k la[;k 380@06 esa 23-1-2009 dks vkids }kjk dsoy fu.kZ; dk dsoy vkns'k okyk fgLlk cksyk x;k FkkA fu.kZ; fy[kkrs le; vkids }kjk i{kdkjksa ds }kjk nkf[ky fyf[kr cgl dks i eSa bl le; iDds rkSj ij ugh dg ldrk fd 15-1-2009 dks vkius fMDVs'ku losjs fn;k Fkk ;k dc fn;k FkkA lqudj rlnhd fd;kA tuin U;k;k/kh'k] cqyUn'kgjA 13-8-2010 mDr C;ku esjs cksyus ij LVsuks }kjk Vkbi fd;k x;kA tuin U;k;k/kh'k] cqyUn'kgjA 13-8-2010"
13. We do not find any perversity in finding of the Inquiry Officer because it is in-consonance to the statement given by the stenographer but referring to the cross-examination, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness concerned could not state as to whether the dictation was given in the morning or evening. The aforesaid fact is however not relevant because petitioner could not demolish the statement of witness in reference to the dictation of judgement of various dates which is 3.1.2009, 9.1.2009, 14.1.2009 and 15.1.2009, much prior to the completion of argument. In view of facts aforesaid, we do not find it to be a case of perverse finding.
14. The issue now remains about extraneous consideration for which also charge exist. The Inquiry Officer found charges to be proved for the reasons that the judgement was dictated prior to completion of argument and it can be when there exists extraneous consideration. Accordingly we do not find that the order of punishment is based on perverse finding, so as to be interfered.
15. The argument in reference to Article 311 of the Constitution of India has also been made to question the order of punishment as it was inflicted without service of second show cause notice of proposed punishment.
The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of the amendment in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. There exist no provision to serve a show cause notice for proposed punishment. In view of aforesaid, we do not find merit even in the second argument to question the order of punishment.
16. The argument has been raised that out of seven charges, only two charges were found proved. In view of that, punishment is disproportionate to the charge.
The punishment has been inflicted after the inquiry and a report thereupon where two charges were found proved. The punishment is taking into consideration the gravity of the proved charges. It cannot be said to be case of disproportionate punishment as both the charges were of serious nature. A Judicial Officer is expected to conduct himself.
17. Other than the arguments dealt by us, no other argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Finding no merit in the two grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner to question the order of punishment, we dismiss the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-