Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vandana vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban ... on 10 February, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Harkauli
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Reserved Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11447 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Vandana Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar,Yogesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemant Kumar Mishra, Riyaz Ahmad Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli, J.)
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned counsel for the State assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.
2. This petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure 1) removing the petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, District Lucknow in exercise of powers under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge her duties on the aforesaid post and not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as such.
3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that on 07.07.2012, the petitioner was elected as President of Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, Lucknow and assumed charge on the said post on 20.07.2012. One Sri Vidya Niwas Mishra was posted as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Amethi by the State Government in July 2013. Since there were complaints against Sri Mishra, hence a board meeting of the Nagar Panchayat was convened, which resolved on 24.07.2013 that Sri Mishra be recommended for transfer from Nagar Panchayat, Amethi. This recommendation was sent to the State Government but the State Government vide its letter dated 22.08.2013 asked the petitioner to allow Sri Mishra to join and this direction was coupled with a threat to the petitioner that if Sri Mishra was not allowed to join, the financial and administrative power of the petitioner may be withdrawn. Hence, on 27.08.2013 in spite of the resolution of the Board to the contrary, the petitioner allowed Sri Mishra to join as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, Lucknow. Sri Mishra, who was in the said circumstances annoyed with the petitioner and in collusion with other interested persons made a false complaint to the State Government against the petitioner in September, 2013 (Annexure 7). On 30.09.2013, on the said complaint of Sri Mishra, an inquiry was ordered to be made by the State Government against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was commenced on the said complaint and on the basis of false and incorrect material supplied by Sri Mishra as also on the basis of statement of the witnesses recorded behind the back of the petitioner, the District Magistrate submitted a preliminary inquiry report dated 11.11.2013 to the State Government, thereupon the State Government issued a notice dated 16.12.2013 under section 48(a) and (b) (xiv) and (xv) to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner's financial and administrative powers cannot be ceased. The petitioner submitted her reply on 10.02.2014 denying all the allegations and charges. Instead of considering the same, another show cause notice dated 21.02.2014 under section 48 of the Act, 1916 on the self same charges were issued de hors the provisions contained in the Act for removing the petitioner from the post of the President, Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, Lucknow. The petitioner submitted her reply dated 06.03.2016 to the State Government to the said show cause notice.
4. The petitioner challenged the said show cause notice dated 21.02.2014 by filing a writ petition No.3999 (MB) of 2014 but the same was decided against the petitioner with direction to the State Government to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. When this order was served upon the State Government, the State Government on the basis of ex-parte inquiry report dated 11.11.2013, passed an order for removal of the petitioner from the aforesaid post on 06.08.2014. The petitioner challenged the removal order by means of writ petition No.10133 (MB) of 2014 on the ground that the inquiry against her was conducted ex-parte and copies of the complaints and other materials were not supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing. The High Court after hearing the parties in the said writ petition came to the conclusion that no regular inquiry as contemplated under law was conducted and hence the order of removal of the petitioner from her post was set aside but liberty was allowed to the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law and pass a fresh order accordingly.
5. The petitioner, in compliance of the order of the High Court, was reinstated on her post. On 24.02.2015, the State Government took a decision for re-inquiry against the petitioner and appointed an officer to conduct the inquiry. On 29.09.2015, the inquiry officer asked the petitioner to submit any additional reply to the charges other than the reply submitted to the earlier notice dated 16.12.2013. No charge-sheet or any other material, proposed to be relied as evidence in the inquiry, was supplied by the inquiry officer to the petitioner. The petitioner vide letter dated 15.11.2015 denied the charges as there was no financial loss or embezzlement and she categorically alleged that for any execution of work or any duty to be performed by the Board under the relevant Government Order, it was the executive officer, who was responsible under section 50(c) and 94(4) of the Act, 1916. Thereafter, the inquiry officer vide letter dated 02.12.2015 provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which cannot be a substitute for regular inquiry which, in turn, contemplates providing of material in support of the charges to the delinquent and accordingly, this act is in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. The inquiry officer with preconceived mind submitted his report dated 08.03.2016 holding the petitioner guilty of charges on the basis of earlier reply dated 10.02.2014 and the earlier ex-parte report of the District Magistrate dated 11.11.2013 as also the removal order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the State Government. The inquiry report dated 08.03.2016 was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 01.04.2016 by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the petitioner was asked to appear before the Secretary, Nagar Vikas on 04.04.2016 along with the written submissions to the inquiry report. The petitioner vide letter dated 04.04.2016 submitted her written submission and requested that a copy of the statement of witnesses and documents be provided to her so that a proper opportunity to deny the report may be available to her. The State Government completely ignoring the grounds taken by the petitioner in her reply dated 15.11.2015 and 04.04.2016, with predetermined mind held the petitioner guilty of the charges found proved on the basis of inquiry report dated 08.03.2016 and proceeded to pass the impugned punishment order dated 11.04.2016.
7. The petitioner aggrieved by the punishment order dated 11.04.2016 filed a writ petition No.10696 (MB) of 2016, which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh making specific averments in relation to the allegation and charges, which were grounds for removal of the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioner, during fresh inquiry, she was not supplied with any charge-sheet and the material proposed to be considered against the petitioner in the fresh inquiry inspite of categorical statement of the petitioner that it was the Board, which in its meeting and resolution dated 24.07.2013 had recommended the transfer of the Executive Officer. No member of the Board was called to give statement nor the opportunity to cross examine any such witness was afforded. It was not inquired into as to whether such Board meetings could not be convened because of non-cooperation of Members of the Board, as explained by the petitioner. No person or clerk was examined by the inquiry officer regarding the charge no.5 of deleting entries and making overlapping entries in the relevant register. In respect of charges no.6 and 7 regarding non-publication of Tender Notices in the newspaper having wider circulation, the averment of the petitioner that the newspapers in which the Tender Notices were published were selected by the Executive Officer was, also not considered. In respect of charge no.8, the petitioner had specifically averred that there was no loss to exchequer in view of the sanctioned plan, as such, no charge could be leveled for any irregularity. In respect of charges no.9 to 11, it was specifically stated by the petitioner that after due verification, lower tender bidders were accepted and the same was approved by the Executive Officer and the payments were made. No evidence was taken in this regard during the inquiry. In respect of charge no.12, the petitioner alleged that payments were made after due approval of the District Magistrate but even this aspect was not examined by any clear cut evidence. Charge no.13, which pertained to payments were denied by the petitioner on the ground that the said payments were duly approved by the Executive Officer and only thereafter the payments have actually been made. Thus, no fresh/denovo inquiry as mandated under law was conducted against the petitioner and hence removal of the petitioner (a duly elected Member) on the basis of proved misconduct, which was a quasi judicial proceedings in nature could not be upheld in law.
8. According to the petitioner, a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry. The submission is that an elected official in local self government, who stands on even a higher pedestal cannot be removed from office without holding a full fledged inquiry as propounded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of R.Y. Bhoir; 2012 (4) SCC 407.
9. Respondents no. 1 to 3 by means of common counter affidavit and the respondent no.4 by a separate counter affidavit disputed the allegations of the petitioner stating that all these allegations are devoid of merit and are misconceived. According to the opposite parties, the inquiry is in line with statutory scheme as envisaged in U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1916. According to the respondents, certain complaints were received by the State Government against the functioning of the petitioner and hence a preliminary inquiry was held in which the charges against the petitioner were found to be established. After issuing notice to the petitioner and after perusal of the reply, the State Government on 18.02.2014 had ceased the administrative and financial powers of the petitioner. By the said notice, the petitioner was also required to show cause as to why she may not be removed from her office. The writ petition No.3999 (MB) of 2014 challenging the said show cause notice was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2014. Thereafter, the respondents no. 1 to 3 proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 06.08.2014, the petitioner was removed from her office. This order was put in issue in writ petition No.10133 (MB) of 2014 and the order was set aside with liberty to the State Government to conduct a fresh inquiry against the petitioner into the alleged charges in accordance with law.
10. The petitioner was immediately thereafter reinstated and in view of the liberty granted by the High Court, denovo inquiry was commenced against the petitioner. Vide letter dated 29.09.2015, the inquiry officer asked the petitioner to submit any further explanation. It was only after the petitioner submitted her further explanation on 01.12.2015, the inquiry officer fixed 16.12.2015 as the date of inquiry with permission to the petitioner for personal hearing. On 18.01.2016, the petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer and stated that her earlier reply dated 01.12.2015 was sufficient and she has nothing further to say in the matter. After conducting the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report vide letter dated 08.03.2016 and thereupon the State Government passed the impugned order dated 11.04.2016 removing the petitioner from her post. According to the respondents, there was a clear element of admission of guilt on the part of the petitioner in her reply dated 04.04.2016 submitted to the State Government. Point no.4 of which is extracted as under:
"fcUnq la[;k pkj%& Jheku~ yxk;s x;s lEiw.kZ vkjksiksa esa ek= vKkurk ds dkj.k izfdz;kRed =qfV gqbZ gS] mldk eq[; dkj.k eSa fu;eksa] fofu;eksa ls iw.kZr;k vufHkK Fkh vkSj fu;eksa fofu;eksa ds vfHkK ¼tkudkj½ ,oa ikfydk dsUnzh;r lsok ds vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ij ;g fo'okl djds fd ;fn eq>ls dgha Hkh pwd gksxh rks os eq>s RkRdky lrdZ djsaxs] blh fo'okl ds lkFk dk;Z@gLrk{kj vkfn djrh jghA d`i;k esjh bl vKkurk dks 'kklu {kek djsa ftl izdkj m0iz0 ds ek0 ea=h e.My ¼dSchusV½ }kjk fy;s x;s fdlh fu.kZ; dks ek0 eq[;ea=h th dk fu.kZ; ugha dgk tk ldrk] mlh izdkj fudk; cksMZ }kjk fy;s x;s fdlh fu.kZ; dks v/;{k ds fu.kZ; dh laKk ugh nh tk ldrh gSA cksMZ cSBd dh lwpuk ek0 ik"kZnx.kksa dks vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk ,d lIrkg iwoZ nh tkrh gS] vkSj cksMZ }kjk ;fn dksbZ vuSfrd fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS] rks vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd os cksMZ ds fu.kZ; dh izfr ftykf/kdkjh ,oa 'kklu dks izsf"kr djsa vkSj ;fn dksbZ vfiz; fu.kZ; gS rks ftykf/kdkjh@'kklu mls izfr"ks/k dj ldrk gSA dnkfpr izdj.k esa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk vius drZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa dk ltxrkiwoZd ifjikyu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj muds Hkh f'kfFkyrk ds nkf;Roksa dks v/;{k ij gh Hkkfjr dj fn;k x;kA dnkfpr esjs lkFk U;k;laxr dk;Zokgh ugh dh x;hA"
11. Since section 50 of the Act No.2 of 1916 provides for the functions to be performed by the President are mandatory in nature whereas section 51of the said Act postulates for some additional duties of Chairperson, which were not duly discharged by the petitioner and hence the entire defence of the petitioner fails.
12. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, the relevant statutory provision i.e. Section 48 of the Act of 1916 is extracted herein under:
"48. Removal of President.-
(1) ...... [omitted] (2) Where the State Government has, at any time, reason to believe that -
(a) there has been a failure on the part of the President in performing his duties, or
(b) the President has-
(i) incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sections 12-D and 43-AA; or
(ii) within the meaning of Section 82 knowingly acquired or continued to have, directly or indirectly or by a partner, any share or interest, whether pecuniary or of any other nature, in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Board; or
(iii) knowingly acted as a President or as a member in a matter other than a matter referred to in Clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 82, in which he has, directly or indirectly, or by a partner, any share or interest whether pecuniary or of any other nature, or in which he was professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or
(iv) being a legal practitioner acted or appeared in any suit or other proceeding on behalf of any person against the Board or against the State Government in respect of nazul land entrusted to the management of the Board or acted or appeared for or on behalf of any person against whom a criminal proceeding has been instituted by or on behalf of the Board; or
(v) abandoned his ordinary place of residence in the municipal area concerned; or
(vi) been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties; or
(vii) during the current or the last preceding term of the Board, acting as President or Vice-President, or as Chairman of a Committee, or as member or in any other capacity whatsoever, whether before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, so flagrantly abused his position, or so willfully contravened any of the provisions of this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-laws, or caused such loss or damage to the fund or property of the Board as to render him unfit to continue to be President; or
(viii) been guilty of any other misconduct whether committed before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self-Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 whether as President or as as Vice-President, exercising teh powers of President or as Vice President ; or as member It may call upon him to show cause within the time to be specified in the notice why he should not be removed from office.
[(2-A)]. After considering any explanation that may be offered by the President and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remove the President from his office.
Provided that in a case where the State Government has issued notice in respect of any ground mentioned in clause (a) or sub clause (ii) (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii) or (viii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) it may instead of removing him give him a warning.
13. The petitioner holds the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad. An amendment in the Constitution of India by adding Part-IX and IX-A confers upon the local self Government a complete autonomy on the basic democratic unit unshackled from official control. Thus, exercise of any power having effect of destroying the Constitutional Institution besides being outrageous is dangerous to the democratic set-up of this country. Therefore, an elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed by law, in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution, by the State by adopting a casual approach and resorting to manipulations to achieve ulterior purpose. The Court being the custodian of law cannot tolerate any attempt to thwart the Institution.
14. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features e.g. Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review under Article 32, 226 and 227 etc. It is not permissible to destroy any of the basic features of the Constitution even by any form of amendment, and therefore, it is beyond imagination that it can be eroded by the executive on its whims without any reason. The Constitution accords full faith and credit to the act done by the executive in exercise of its statutory powers, but they have a primary responsibility to serve the nation and enlighten the citizens to further strengthen a democratic State. Public administration is responsible for the effective implementation of the rule of law and constitutional commands which effectuate fairly the objective standard set for adjudicating good administrative decisions. However, wherever the executive fails, the Courts come forward to strike down an order passed by them passionately and to remove arbitrariness and unreasonableness for the reason that the State by its illegal action becomes liable for forfeiting the full faith and credit trusted with it.
15. Basic means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means "actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the people in running the administration of the Government. It conveys the State of affairs in which each citizen is assured of the right of equal participation in the polity.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, providing for the procedure of removal of the President of the Municipal Council on similar grounds in Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2524. The Court held that removal of an elected office bearer is a serious matter. The elected office bearer must not be removed unless a clear-cut case is made out, for the reason that holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the elected member but also of his constituency or electoral college. His removal may curtail the term of the office bearer and also cast stigma upon him. Therefore, the procedure under a particular provision for removal must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made out, there can be no justification for his removal. While taking the decision, the authority should not be guided by any other extraneous consideration or should not come under any political pressure.
In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or is removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision must show that the authority had applied its mind to the allegations made and the explanation furnished by the elected office bearers sought to be removed. Same set of principle has been re-affirmed in the case of Sharda Kailash Mittal vs. State of M.P. 2010 (2) SCC 319 with further observation that recourse should be taken to remove such authority only for very strong and weighty reason, such a power is not to be exercised for minor irregularities in discharge of duties by the holder of elected post. The provision has to be construed in strict manner because the holder of office occupies it by election and he/she is deprived of the office by an executive order in which electorate has no chance of participation.
17. In People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2363, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"The trite saying that "democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people" has to be remembered for ever. in a democratic republic, it is the will of the people that is paramount and becomes the basis of the authority of the Government. The will is expressed in periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage held by means of secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the voter expresses his choice or preference for a candidate "Voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue", as observed by this Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha, (1993) 4 SCC 234 quoting from Black's Law Dictionary. The citizens of the country are enabled to take part in the Government through their chosen representatives. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the Government of the day is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The people's representatives fill the role of law-makers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances."
18. A Full Bench of this Court in Iqbal Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1998 All C J 3, while considering the similar case under the provisions of U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914 held that the State Government before passing the order, has to provide an opportunity to the Chairman/Member, who is sought to be removed. In the said case, it was also held that even if there was no requirement of furnishing the copy of the inquiry report to the office bearer, sought to be removed, it is mandatory on the part of the State Authority to serve the same and provide an opportunity to such an office bearer of putting his case before the State Government in writing and an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, would stand vitiated. The Full Bench has observed as under:-
".........in absence of any provision which expressly or by necessary implication includes the application of principles of natural justice or just and fair procedure, it is our considered view that the State Government before passing the order of confirmation has to provide an opportunity to the Chairman/Member, who is sought to be removed by supplying him a copy of the order passed by the Collector and provide him an opportunity of putting his case before the State Government in writing."
19. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a government servant. If a temporary government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry. In service jurisprudence, minor punishment is permissible to be imposed while holding the inquiry as per the procedure prescribed for it but for removal, termination or reduction in rank, a full fledged inquiry is required otherwise it will be violative of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The case is to be understood in an entirely different context as compared to the government employees for the reason that for the removal of the elected officials, a more stringent procedure and standard of proof is required.
20. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further period of five years, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal.
21. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadanandan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1925, held that if all the safeguards provided under the Rules are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, becomes liable to be quashed.
22. In S.C. Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal AIR 1977 SC 1174 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not permissible to hold an inquiry on vague charges as the same does not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against ' him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. The Supreme Court observed as under:
"The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."
23. In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the inquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the inquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
24. In Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 995, the Apex Court held that even in a domestic inquiry the charge must be clear, definite, and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory even if the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest against that the charges are vague, that does not save the inquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair-play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering its earlier judgments in Mohinder Kumar Vs. State, (1998) 8 SCC 655; State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 724; Ali Mustafa Abdul Rehman Moosa Vs. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 569, held that it must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed.
26. In Dr. Meera Massey Vs. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1153, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"If the laws and principles are eroded by such institutions, it not only pollutes its functioning deteriorating its standard but also exhibits.............wrong channel adopted..........If there is any erosion or descending by those who control the activities all expectations and hopes are destroyed. If the institutions perform dedicated and sincere service with the highest morality it would not only up-lift many but bring back even a limping society to its normalcy."
27. In U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors., v. Ram Chandra Yadav (2000) 9 SCC 327, while dealing with a similar case, the Apex Court held as under:
"In other words, what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation, whether he has been given an opportunity to state his case and whether the departmental authority has acted in good faith. If these requirements are satisfied then it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated."
28. The power of judicial review of the writ court is limited, but it has competence to examine as to whether there was material to form such an opinion as required by law. It further requires a full fledged opportunity of explanation, which implies that the member should be permitted to examine the witnesses against him and if necessary to cross-examine them and produce evidence in his defence or the findings recorded by the authority concerned are perverse. It is settled law that non-consideration of relevant material renders an order perverse. A finding is said to be perverse when the same is not supported by evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularities. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nanha and another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and others reported at 1975 AWC 1 All (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7294 of 1971 decided on 15.05.1973) in paragraph 17, it was observed as under:
"If it appears that a court of fact has in substance based its findings on no evidence or that its finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person could possibly come to that conclusion or that it erroneously ignores a vital plea or material evidence which affects the result, a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record leading to failure of justice can be said to be established. But if a court or a tribunal bases its finding on a consideration of all relevant evidence, but an appellate or a revisional court or tribunal while affirming the finding does not refer to some material or contrary evidence in its order it cannot be said that it has been ignored from consideration so as to entitle the High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution."
29. When the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. It has been hitherto an uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following some other course is not permissible. This maxim has consistently been followed, as is evident from the cases referred to above. It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court without entering into the issue of sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence, must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act to be illegal and invalid as naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law.
30. The purpose of holding inquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charge against him or imposing penalty, rather it is conducted with the object of recording the truth and in that sense the outcome of an inquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand and result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is of a paramount necessity. The authority concerned cannot penalise the delinquent on an allegation which is not a part of the charge-sheet, as it would be an order beyond the charge against the delinquent and it cannot be sustained.
31. In a given case the Inquiry Officer may collect certain information during the inquiry behind the back of the delinquent. Unless it is disclosed to him and the delinquent is given an opportunity to explain, the said material cannot be relied upon. Inquiry officer is not entitled to collect evidence behind the back of the delinquent on a charge framed against him and arrive at his finding on the basis of that private inquiry.
32. Where a delinquent is given a show cause notice, it has to be considered objectively and not subjectively. The authority is under an obligation to specify as which part of the explanation of the delinquent is not acceptable and for what reason otherwise it would be a case of non-application of mind or not recording the reasons. During the course of enquiry, every document which is being relied upon by the Department and by the Inquiry Officer to record a finding must be supplied to the delinquent failing which the inquiry would not be in accordance with law and the authority must act in good faith otherwise the proceedings would stand vitiated.
33. The State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice- in facts or in law. "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for "purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended." It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts.
34. Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as in trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact -situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". Decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. Authority is under legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other.
35. In such a case, authority has to satisfy that it has acted reasonably in a fair and just manner and whatever the statutory mandate requires must be honoured by the State. No deviation of the requirement of the procedure is permissible if the statute provides for severe consequence. Undoubtedly, the interest of the State is supreme but every action of the State must be right, just and fair.
36. It may not be out of place to mention here that while deciding the writ petition Misc. Bench No.10133 of 2014, the order passed against the petitioner on 06.08.2014 was set aside by this Court on the ground that no inquiry as contemplated under sub-section (2-A) of Section 48 of the Act was conducted by the State Government and liberty was allowed to the State Government to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner into the alleged charges in accordance with law and pass fresh orders accordingly. Hence, the question to be examined is as to whether a fresh inquiry as contemplated under law was conducted against the petitioner before passing the impugned order against her.
37. It is not disputed that no fresh charge-sheet was given to the petitioner in respect of the charges. This is evident from the inquiry report as sent by the inquiry officer to the Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, Government of U.P., as contained in pages 82 to 98 of the paper book. On the very first page of the report, it is clearly stated that in respect of the inquiry conducted earlier, wherein the charges were found to be proved and accordingly, an explanation was called for on 16.12.2013 from the petitioner that she may file any additional reply within the stipulated time. This report further goes to say that the charges 1 to 3 (page 83 of the paper book) were as under:
vkjksi la[;k&1 Jh fo|kfuokl feJ] vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh uxj iapk;r] vesBh] tuin y[kuÅ dk LFkkukUrj.k 'kklu ds vkns'k la[;k&3600@9&1&2014&232 lk@13] fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk fd;s tkus ds mijkUr Jh feJ }kjk fnukad 20-07-2013 dks viuh ;ksxnku vk[;k izLrqr dh x;h FkhA mDr izkFkZuk i= ij vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Vh-th-½ y[kuÅ ds vksn'k vafdr gksus ij Hkh vuqikyu u djuk rFkk iqu% vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Vh-th-½ y[kuÅ dks Jh feJ }kjk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 27-07-2013 dks fn;s tkus ds mijkUr v/;{k }kjk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha djk;k x;kA bl izdkj 'kklu ds mDr vkns'k dh yxkrkj vogsyuk dh x;hA vkjksi la[;k&2 Jh feJ dks fcuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djk;s v/;{k }kjk fdl vk/kkj ij m0 iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1916 dh /kkjk&58 ds vf/kdkjksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, Jh feJ dks uxj iapk;r] vesBh ls dk;ZeqDr fd;k x;kA vkjksi la[;k&3 Jh feJ dks fcuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djk;s fdl vk/kkj ij cksMZ dh cSBd fnukad 24-07-2013 esa Jh feJ ds fo:} fofHkUUk vkjksi yxkrs gq, uxj iapk;r vesBh ls LFkkukUrj.k@gVk;s tkus dk IkzLrko fd;k x;kA The reply to these three charges of the petitioner are extracted hereunder:
mijksDr rhuksa vkjksiksa dk mRRkj Jherh oUnuk] v/;{k }kjk vius i= la[;k&78@Vh0,0lh@tkap@2014] fnukd 11-06-2014 }kjk la;qDr :i ls fn;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;g voxr djk;k x;k gS fd vkjksi ds Li"Vhdj.k esa mDr vkjksiksa dk mYYks[k ugha gS cfYd u;k dFku vfrfjDr lfEEkfyr fd;k x;k gSA dksbZ Hkh dk;kZy;@fu;Urk ,sls dkfeZd dh vk'kk djrk gS tks mlds dk;kZy; esa drZO;fu"B] lnkpkjh] le; dk ikcUn gks ftlds dk;kZy; dk okrkoj.k LoLFk jgsA tuJqfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij inkLFkkfir Jh fo|k fuokl feJk] vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ds lEcU/k esa Kkr gqvk fd ;g drZO;fu"B ugh gS] fu;e fo:} dk;Zokgh djrs gS] fudk; o tufgr inkf/kdkfj;ksa chp budk O;Okgkj vPNk ugh jgrk gSA vuq'kklughurk djrs gSA bu lc dkj.kksa ls bUgsa fnukad 24-07-2013 dks ;ksxnku ugh djk;k x;k ijUrq buds fo"k; esa dfri; yksxksa ds }kjk dRkZO;fu"Bk ,oa vuq'kklu'khy crk;s tkus ij ;ksxnku djk fy;k x;kA ;ksxnku ds mijkUr Jh fo|k fuokl feJ] vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 20-07-2013 ls ,d fnu vkuk o ,d fnu u vkuk] mifLFkfr iaftdk esa gLrk{kj u djuk] eq[;ky; ij u jguk] fcuk fdlh ij fo'okl fd;s euekus :i ls dk;Z djuk ,oa fudk; dk;Z ds fodkl fgr esa dksbZ dk;Z u djuk tSls d`R; fd;s x;s] ftlls uxj iapk;r dh Nfo [kjkc gqbZ rFkk fnukad 20-07-2013 dks cksMZ dh vkikrdkyhu cSBd lEiUUk gqbZ ftlds rFkk muds LFkkukUrj.k dh laLrqfr dh x;hA ¼Nk;kizfr laYkXu½ blls Li"V gS fd tuJqfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKku esa vk;k dFku lR; jgk gSA ,sls dkfeZd tks 'kkldh; fgr esa dk;Z u djs mUgsa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djkuk 'kkldh; vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk ugh ojuk 'kkldh; fgr esa 'kklu dh oLrqfLFkfr ls laKkfur djkuk] dRkZO; ijk;.krk dk ifjpk;d gSA Thereafter, the discussion as contained in the said report is as under:
Jh fo|k fuokl feJ] vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k 'kklu ds vkns'k fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk uxj iapk;r] vesBh esa fjDr in ij fd;k x;k FkkA mDr LFkkukUrj.k vkns'kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tkuk v/;{k ds fy;s ck/;dkjh gS fQj Hkh mUgksausa funs'kd] LFkkuh; fudk; rFkk ftykf/kdkjh] y[kuÅ ds funsZ'kksa ds ckn Hkh Jh fo|k fuokl feJ dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha djk;k x;kA bruk gh ugha fcuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djk;s v/;{k }kjk ,d ladYi ikfjr dj muds vU;= LFkkukUrj.k dh laLrqfr Hkh dj nh x;h Av/;{k }kjk bl ekeys esa LosPNkpkfjrk fn[kk;h x;h tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls xzkg~; ugha gSA vr% muds fo:} vkjksi la[;k&1 ls 3 iw.kZr;k fl} gksrk gSA
38. From the perusal of the charges, explanation of the petitioner and the discussion of the inquiry officer, it clearly emerges that the allegation against the petitioner was that Sri Vidya Nand Mishra, who was posted by the State Government as Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, was not given the charge and this was violative of the provisions of Section 58 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the resolution of the Board meeting dated 24.07.2013, whereby the transfer of Sri Mishra from Nagar Panchayat, Amethi was recommended thereby committing irregularity by the petitioner.
The petitioner in her reply clearly stated that Sri Mishra was allowed to join on the post of Executive Officer and in view of certain complaints against him as also his irregular attendance in the office and not signing the attendance register and not discharging his duties properly, it was resolved by the Board in an emergency meeting to recommend his transfer to the State Government. This was done in the interest of office and not against the interest of the office. What was considered by the inquiry officer does not reveal any material to show that Sri Mishra was not allowed to join and even this factum was not inquired into as to whether recommendation of transfer of Sri Mishra from Nagar Panchayat, Amethi was against the interest of the institution and that the charges 1 to 3 were held to be proved.
39. Charge no.4, explanation of the petitioner in respect of the said charge, and the conclusion recorded thereof by the inquiry officer is extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼4½ uxj iapk;r vesBh esa tqykbZ] 2012 ls vDVwcj 2013 rd dqy 15 ekg esa dqy 06 ekgksa esa gh cksMZ dh cSBd vkgwr dh x;h fdUrq 04 cSBdsa gh lEiUUk gks ik;h 'ks"k 02 cSBdsa vki }kjk fu;fer :i ls cSBd ds nkSjku chp easa gh fujLr dj nh x;h FkhA bl izdkj vkids }kjk uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1916 dh /kkjk&51 d RkFkk /kkjk&86 ds }kjk vkjksfir dRkZO;ksa ,oa 'kfDRk;ksa dk fuoZgu djus esa pwd dh x;h gS] ftlds fy, v/;{k nks"kh ,oa mRRkjnk;h gSA lk{; ds :i esa & uxj cksMZ dh cSBd dk ,tsUMk laYkXux& Þ[kß ¼lkr i`"B½ v/;{k dk mRRkj& vkjksi&4 ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd eSa ,d fuokZfpr efgyk v/;{k gw¡] ftl izdkj eq>s vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokgh ds izfr cks/k djk;k x;k] mlh izdkj ls dk;Zokgh lEiUUk jghA KkrO; gks fd uxj ikfydk v/;{k ds in ij fuokZfpr O;fDRk turk ds chp ls vkdj foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa ls iw.kZ vufHkK jgrk gS] ftldk cks/k mldk dk;kZy; dk vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh djkrk gSA m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 ds /kkjk&51 esa vfrfjDr drZO; dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa¼d½ ,d fn;k x;k gS fd uxj ikfydk dh leLr cSBdkas dks cqyk;s vkSj mudh v/;{krk djsa rFkk /kkjk&86¼2½ esa ;g O;oLFkk gS fd v/;{k tc mfpr le>s] ,d cSBd cqyk ldrk gSA bl O;oLFkk ds v/khu 16 ekg ds vUnj cksMZ dh cSBd Ng ckj cqyk;k drZO; ,oa '''kfDr;ksa ds fuoZgu esa pwd ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA ;|fi uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 esa ;g O;oLFkk fofnr gS fd fudk; cksMZ dh ,d cSBd izfrekg cqykbZ tkuh pkfg, vkSj esjs }kjk cksMZ dh cSBd izfrekg vkgwr Hkh dh x;h fdUrq ek0 ik"kZnx.kksa }kjk cSBd esa O;o/kku fd;k tkrk jgk vkSj os cSBd iaftdk esa gLrk{kj Hkh ugha djrs FksA rFkkfi vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dk mUgsa [kqyk laj{k.k izkIr Fkk vkSj tkaWp vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh tkWp ds le; ;g rF; laKku esa ugha fy;k x;k tcfd mRiUu izfrdwy ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls 'kklu@ftyk iz'kklu dks voxr djk, tkus dk nkf;Ro vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dk FkkA fdUrq bl izdkj ds d`R;ksa gsrq mudk ewd leFkZu ik"kZnx.kksa dks izkIr FkkA m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 ds v/khu d`R; fd;k x;k gSA blds fy, nks"kh dguk vuqfpr gSA vr% eq>s nks"keqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk %& uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e]1916 dh /kkjk&86¼1½ esa ;g Li"V O;oLFkk nh x;h gS fd uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh cSBd izfr ekg de ls de ,d ckj gksxhA v/;{k }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd muds }kjk cksMZ dh cSBd iaftdk esa gLrk{kj Hkh ugha djrs FksA vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dk mUgsa [kqyk laj{k.k izkIr FkkA mudk ;g dFku Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl dFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk izR;sd ekg cSBd vkgwr dh x;hA ;fn muds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh fLFkfr mRiUu gq;h Fkh rks muds }kjk ek0 ik"kZnx.kksa ,oa vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh ds fo:} vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh vkjEHk dh tk ldrh Fkh] ftldk vf/kdkj mUgsa vf/kfu;e esa izkIr FkkA muds }kjk dksb dne mBk;k x;k] bldk dksbZ mYys[k muds mRrj esa ugha gSA vr% mDr vkjksi v/;{k ds fo:} izekf.kr gksrk gSA When examined, this charge goes to show that the meeting of the Board of the Nagar Panchayat was not convened every month and out of the six meetings convened, only four were concluded and two of them were cancelled irregularly by the petitioner. The petitioner in her reply stated that she had convened the meeting regularly but on account of the obstruction of the corporators, this situation arose and they are not signing the attendance register also. In the discussion and conclusion, the inquiry officer disbelieved the aforesaid averment in the explanation of the petitioner merely on the ground that she had not corroborated the said averment with any evidence. This discussion nowhere goes to show that whether the averments of the petitioner in her explanation were considered; whether any evidence of the corporators or anybody-else was taken in support thereof; and whether an opportunity for cross examination of any such witness was allowed to the petitioner before finding her averment to be incorrect.
40. Charge no.5; explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the discussion of the investigating officer is quoted as below:
vkjksi la[;k ¼5½ uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh cSBdksa ds dk;Zo`Rr dh izfrfyfi cSBd lEiUu gksus ds 10 fnuksa ds Hkhrj fofgr izkf/kdkjh vkSj ftyk eftLVªsV dks Hksth tkuh FkhA fdUrq v/;{k }kjk vkgwr cSBdksa ds ladYiksa dh izfrfyfi;ksa fofgr izkf/kdkjh vkSj ftykf/kdkjh dks le;kUrxZr izsf"kr ugha dh x;h ftlds fy, uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 1916 dh /kkjk 50¼x½ rFkk 94¼4½ dk mYya?ku fd, tkus dh v/;{k nks"kh gSA Lkk{; ds :i esa& layXud **?k**¼,d i`"B½ v/;{k dk mRrj %& vkjksi&5 ds lEcU/k esa Li"V djuk gS fd m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 ds /kkjk&63 ds v/khu i= O;ogkj o lwpuk fn, tkus dk dk;Z vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ;k LokLF; vf/kdkjh dk gSA uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh cSBdksa ds dk;Zo`fRr dh izfr dk;Z lEiUu gksus ds 10 fnuksa ds Hkhrj ftyk eftLVsªV dks u Hkstdj vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh us vius drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k gSA ftlls uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 ds /kkjk&50(x) rFkk 94(4) dk mYya?ku djus dk nks"k esjs mij yxk;k tkuk vuqfpr gSA vr% bl nks"k ls eq>s eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk& bl vkjksi ds lEcU/k es v/;{k }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dk nkf;Ro dk;Zdkjh vkns'kksa dks fuxZr djus mls lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks iszf"kr djuk ,oa mldh iqf"V djkuk gSA ;g vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh dk nkf;Ro Fkk fd v/;{k }kjk uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh cSBdksa dk dk;Zo`Rr dh izfr;ka cSBd lEiUu gksus ds 10 fnu ds vUnj fofgr izkf/kdkjh ,oa ftyk eftLVªsV dks iszf"kr djrsA ;g vko';d ugh gS fd dksbZ i=kpkj v/;{k ds gLrk{kj ls fd;k tkrk gSA vr% mDr vkjksi v/;{k ij izekf.kr ugh ik;k x;kA If we examine this charge, it is to the effect that the minutes of the Board meeting of the Nagar Panchayat should have been sent to the Prescribed Authority and the District Magistrate within ten days, which was not done. The petitioner replied to this charge stating that it was the responsibility of the Executive Officer to do so under section 63 of the Act. In the discussion, the inquiry officer held that since this correspondence has to be done under the signatures of the Chairman, hence the charge is found to be proved.
Who actually was responsible for this correspondence not taking place, was not inquired in depth by the inquiry officer and no evidence was taken in this regard either.
41. Charge no.6; explanation of the petitioner and the discussion of the inquiry officer is extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼6½ uxj iapk;r cksMZ vesBh] dh dk;Zokgh iaftdk ds i`"B la[;k&2 ij ntZ cSBd fnukad 30-7-12 ds izLrko la[;k&6 i`"B la[;k&27 cSBd fnukad 28-1-13 izLrko la[;k&2]3 ij Lohd`r ladYiksa esa lafnX/k la'kks/ku fd;s x;s gS rFkk bl izfof"V;ksa ds }kjk ntZ fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;ksZ dks vfu;fer rjhds ls Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ij v/;{k iw.kZ #i ls nks"kh gSa lk{; ds #i esa layXud&*[k* v/;{k dk mRrj& vkjksi&6 ds lEcU/k es Li"V djuk gS fd layXu fd, x;s layXud&[k cSBd fnukad 30-07-2012 ds dk;ZoRRk ds izLrko&5] i= la[;k&7] cSBd fnukad 28-01-2013 ds izLrko&2 o 3 ij Lohd`r ladYiks ij la'kks/ku ifjyf{kr ugha gks jgs gSa ijUrq ;fn dgha dfVax fd;k x;k gS rks 'kCnks dks lgh #i iznku djus ds fy, ys[kd }kjk fd;k x;k rFkk lnL;ksa ds le{k fd;k x;k gS blfy, dksbZ lafnX/k la'kks/ku ugh fd;k x;k gSA ;g iw.kZ#is.k lR; gS fd cSBd dh dk;Zokgh fudk; ds ofj"B fyfid }kjk gh fyfic) dh tkrh gS vkSj cksMZ cSBd ds lekiu ds i'pkr fyfid }kjk lEiw.kZ fyfic) izLrkoksa dks Li"V #i ls i<+k tkrk gSA ;fn dgha ij ys[ku =qfV gS rks mlesa dfVax ,oa la'kks/ku lEcfU/kr fyfir }kjk gh fd;k tkrk gS] blds i'pkr gh ik"kZnx.k $ bZ0vks ,oa ps;jeSus }kjk gLrk{kj fd, tkrs gSaA vr,o dk;kZy; dh LokHkkfor izfdz;k gsrq fdlh ij Hkh nks"kkjksi.k dnkfpr mfpr ugha gksxkA ;fn fdlh ys[kd ;k vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ls =qfV gks rks v/;{k ds mij ykaNu yxk;k tkuk loZFkk vuqfpr gSA vr% bl vkjksi ls eq>s eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk %& mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa ;g Li"Vhdj.k fn;k x;k gS fd ;fn cSBd dh dk;Zokgh fdlh fyfid }kjk fyfic) dh tkrh gS vkSj ckn esa dksbZ fyfidh; =qfV dks la'kksf/kr fd;k tkrk gS rks bldk nks"kkjksi.k v/;{k ds Åij mfpr ugha gSA v/;{k dk mDr Li"Vhdj.k Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA muds }kjk dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS fd dk;Zokgh iaftdk ds i`"B&2 rFkk 27 ij Lohd`r ladYiksa esa la'kks/ku muds }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA bldh iqf"V gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK ls Hkh djk;h tk ldrh gS fd fd;k x;k la'kks/ku fdldh gLrfyfi esa gSA pwafd mDr dk;Zokgh ij v/;{k }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s x;s gSA vr% izLrko la[;k&2 ,oa 27 dks vksoj ySfiax djds vfu;fer rjhds ls ntZ fed;k x;k] ftlds QyLo:i djk;s x;s mDr fuekZ.k dk;ksZa dk vfu;fer Hkqxrku djk;s tkus dk vkjksi fl) gksrk gSA vr ;g vkjksi iw.kZr;k fl) gksrk gSA This charge relates to a register of the Nagar Panchayat, as on certain pages, certain interpolations have been stated to be made. The petitioner specifically stated in her explanation that these were not the interpolations but were corrections to giveout a correct picture. This explanation was not specifically examined and in whose handwriting were these cuttings, was also not considered by the inquiry officer and he disbelieved the explanation of the petitioner merely on the ground that no proof in this regard had come from the side of the petitioner.
42. Charge no.7 against the petitioner; explanation of the petitioner and the discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼7½ uxj iapk;r vesBh esa djk;s x;s 21 vnn fuekZ.k dk;Z fcuk cksMZ dh cSBd esa ikfjr izLrko ds djk;s x;s gSA mDr fuekZ.k dk;ksZ dh fufonk dk LFkkuh; yksdfiz; lekpkj i=ksa esa izdk'ku u djkdj ,d lkekU; lekpkj i= ^^Lora= lans'k** y[kuÅ uke ds lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr fd;k x;k] tks O;kid izlkj okyk lekpkj i= ugha gSA fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k&1 ls 9 rFkk 12 ls 14 rd dqy 12 fuekZ.k dk;Z ftudh ykxr :i;k 44-16 yk[k gS ,d gh Bsdsnkj Jh losZ'k dqekj ls djkdj Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k 17 ls 20 rd ds fuekZ.k dk;Z ,d gh QeZ ds Bsdsnkj Jh fojsUnz dqekj vesBh ds ek/;e ls djkdj Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k&8 ls 15 rd mfYyf[kr fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ftudh ewy ykxr ewy vkx.ku ds vuqlkj :i;k 31-31 yk[k FkhA fdUrq bu dk;ksZ ds fy, :i;k 51-51 yk[k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k&8] 9 ,oa 10] 12 dk vkx.ku ewY; Øe'k% :i;k 876274-00 rFkk :i;k 952726-00 gksus ds dkj.k pkj fgLlksa esa ckaV dj dk;Z djk;k x;k gS] tcfd 'kklukns'k la[;k&609@ ukS&9&2007&249 t@06] fnukad 26-2-07 }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd :i;k 5-00 yk[k rFkk vf/kd vkx.ku /kujkf'k ds dk;Z ds Vs.Mj ftykf/kdkjh dk;kZy; ij [kksys tk;s rFkk :i;s 5-00 yk[k ls de vkx.ku ewY; ds Vs.Mj fudk; dk;kZy; ij [kksys tk ldrs gSA bl izdkj vkids }kjk mDr fuekZ.k dk;kZsa ds laca/k esa fuEu rkfydk esa vafdr fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa :i;k 80-46 yk[k /kujkf'k euekus Ø0la0 fuekZ.k dk;Z dk uke vkx.ku dh /kujkf'k ¼:i;s esa½ Hkqxrku dh /kujkf'k Bsdsnkj dk uke lekpkj i= dk uke o fnukad 1 eksgYyk enjlk esa jsgku efugkj ds ikl ls pejrfy;k ds ikl feV~Vh iVkbZ dk dk;ZA 2]12]578 2]11]001 losZ'k dqekj] xzke&tgkWxhjiqj] iksLV&csxfj;kW eÅ] Fkkuk xkslkbZxat tuin&y[kuÅ vkt nSfud ¼gjnksbZ vad½ 27-10-2012 2 vcnqy 'kdwj ds edku ds ikl ls [kM+Utk o ukyh ejEer dk dk;ZA 1]45]015 1]45]487 & 3 eksgYyk ?kqM+ p<+k esa 'kjhQ ikyslj ls dfo rkykc rd feV~Vh iVkbZ dj jkLrs dk fuekZ.kA 1]54]378 1]54]308 & vkt nSfud ¼xks.Mk] vktex<+ vad½ 10-1-2013 4 eksgYyk dft;kuk o lat; uxj esa ljojh csxe ds edku ls dfczLrku rd ty fudklh dk dk;ZA 1]57]299 1]57]186 & 5 eksgYyk vCcklh okMZ esa tqUkSn ds edku ls jkf'kn ds edku rd ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 56]375 66]591 & vkt nSfud ¼QStkckn] vEcsMdjuxj vad½ 30-1-2013 6 eksgYyk vUlkjh okMZ esa Naxk ds edku ls 'kdwj ds edku rd ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 88]359 88]336 & & 7 'kgtgkWiqj okMZ esa vkj0,u0 f}osnh ds edku ds ikl ukyh ,oa Økflax dk fukeZ.k dk;ZA 34]302 34]475 & & 8 eqU'khxat lqyrkuiqj jksM ls x;kjke ds edku rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh ds fuekZ.k dk dk;ZA 4]99]991 6]30]933 & Lora= lans'k ¼y[kuÅ vad½ 13-2-2013 9 txiky ds edku ls jkeckx Mkej ekxZ rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;Z& 3]76]283 8]42]069 & & 10 pkSgV~Vk okMZ esa dyhe ds edku ls eq[; ekxZ rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4]72]984 5]15]099 esllZ vkflQ dkl0 & 11 iqfyl pkSdh ls Mkej ekxZ ,oa uxj iapk;r dk;kZy; lh0lh0 jksM rd [kM+Utk ukyh fuekZ.k dk;Z 4]96]224 10]77]663 & & 12 eksgEen leh ds edku ls njxkg rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4-79-782 8]62]087 losZ'k dqekj] xzke&tgkaxhjiqj] iksLV&csxfj;kW eÅ] Fkkuk xkslkbZxat] tuin y[kuÅ & 13 eksgYyk vCcklh esa dkth etgj ds edku ls mLeku ds edku o jes'k ds edku rd [kM+Utk ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4]14]246 6]86]479 & & 14 eksgYyk enjlk esa iadt ds edku ds lkeus ls eq[; ekxZ guqeku ds edku rd ukyh [kM+Utk fuekZ.k dk;ZA 3]91]495 5]37]355 & & 15 eqckjd ds nqdku ls vtht ds edku rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4]62]551 6]69]560 es0 f=nso dkUl0 & 16 tghj ds edku ls futke ds edku rd lh0lh0 xyh ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4]68]416 4]83]257 & & 17 bfEr;kt ds edku ls txUukFk ds edku rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;ZA 4]74]821 4]06]758 fojsUnz dqekj & 18 jes'k ds edku ls bLykew gksVy rd lh0lh0 ekxZ ,oa ukyh fuekZ.k dk;Z 4]81]917 4]81]819 & & 19 eqgYyk caxyk esa [kM+Utk ls eqUu iBku ds edku rd ukyh [kM+UTkk fuekZ.k dk;Z 1]21]593 1]48]140 & & 20 nqxkZ izlkn ds edku ls jke lsod o yYyu ds edku rd ukyh [kM+Utk fuekZ.k dk;ZA 2]74]708 4]34]154 & & 21 eks0 vkSykn vyh iwjok esa izoh.k ds edku ls [kM+Utk rd ,d rjQ ukyh dk fuekZ.k dk;Z ¼cksMZ dh Lohd`fr ek=k :0 51278-00 dh gS] izLrko la[;k&6 fnukad 30-07-2012½ 1]37]237 dk;Z viw.kZ es0 f=nso dkUl0 & lk{;&ds :i esa uxj iapk;r vesBh] y[kuÅ ds fuekZ.k@Lohd`fr;ksa ls lacaf/kr dk;Zokgh iaftdk rFkk i=kofy;ksa ds m)j.k layXu gS ¼layXud&d ls t½ rFkk dqy 21 vnn fuekZ.k dk;kZsa dh i=kofy;ksa ds m)j.k layXud&M½ v/;{k dk mRrj %& vkjksi&7 ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd uxj iapk;r vesBh esa djk, x;s 21 vnn fuekZ.k dk;ZZ cksMZ dh cSBd ds ikfjr izLrkoksa ls lEcfU/kr gS] tSlk fd vki }kjk layXu fd, x;s layXud&[k ls Li"V gSA fuekZ.k dk;kZsa dh fufonk LFkkuh; yksdfiz; lekpkj i= LorU= lans'k] y[kuÅ ls vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrkfor fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ;g Hkh dgk x;k Fkk fd vesBh ds yksxks dks muds iw.kZ :i ls laKku esa gksus ij LFkkuh; yksxksa dks fufonk izkIr gksxh rFkk fodkl ,oa mUu;u dk ekxZ iz'kfLr gksxkA ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk vlaxr u gks fd vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ikfydk dsUnzh;rk lsok dk 'kkldh; deZpkjh gS] vkj og fu;eksa&fofu;eksa dh n{krk esa Hkh fuiq.k gksrk gS rFkk og fudk; v/;{k ds foRrh; o iz'kklfud lykgdkj ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gSA mlds }kjk v/;{k ds le{k vuqeksnu gsrq izLrqr fd, tkus okys izi=ksa ij v/;{k bl vis{kk ds lkFk gLrk{kj djrk gS fd bZ0vks0 }kjk mlls fdlh xyr izi= ij gLrk{kj ugha fy;k tk;sxkA vls vkilh Under Standing Hkh dgk tk ldrk gSA tgkW rd fdlh dk;Z ds Hkqxrku dk iz'u gS rks fuekZ.k dk;kZsa dk izFke deZpkjh voj vfHk;Urk ,oa f}rh; deZpkjh bZ0vks0 ij gksrk gS] tks dk;Z dk LFkyh; fujh{k.k dj fcy ij dk;Z larks"ktud gksus dk izek.k&i= izLrqr djrk gS vkSj rRi'pkr bZ0vks0 vius gLrk{kj dj var esa ps;jeSu ls vuqeksnu izkIr djrk gSA vr,o =qfVo'k gqbZ fdlh vfu;fer Hkqxrku gsrq ek= ps;jeSu dks gh nks"kh Bgjkuk U;k;laxr ugha gksxkA bl n`f"Vdks.k ls LorU= lans'k esa izdkf'kr fufonk vfu;ferrk ugha dgh tk ldrhA dksbZ fyf[kr dFku izkDdyu vf/k'klh vf/kdkjh ,oa mlls lEcfU/kr /kkjk&68 ds v/khu izkfof/kd fo"k;ksa ds fo'ks"k dkfeZdksa }kjk rS;kj fd;k tkrk gSA izkDdyu ,d [email protected] uykxr gksrh gS tks fofHkUu ?kVdks ds dkj.k _.kkRed ,oa /kukred Hkh gks ldrh gS] tSlk fd jkT; ljdkj ds foHkkx esa fofu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA m0iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 dh /kkjk&95 ds vuqlkj O;ogkj ys[kk ctV vkfn dk lapkyu jkT; ljdkj dh Hkkafr fofu;fer fd, tkus dk izkfo/kku gSA vr% izkDdfyr ykxr ls okLrfod ykxr ls vf/kd O;; gksuk LokHkkfod gS] ftls foRrh; vfu;ferrk ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA ;fn fdlh dk;Z esa vf/kd fHkUurk jgh rks vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ,oa lEcfU/kr voj vfHk;Urk] ftUgksaus Hkqxrku gsrq x.kuk djds vkSfpR;iw.kZ Bgjk;k gS] mlds fy, mUgsa mRrjnk;h dgk tk ldrk gSA tgkW rd 'kklukns'k la[;k&609@ukS&2007&08@06 fnukad 26-02-2007 ds vuqlkj :0 5-0 yk[k ls vf/kd Vs.Mj ftykf/kdkjh dk;kZy; esa [kksys tkus dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd Vs.Mj ds ekeyksa esa mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 26-02-2007 ds vuqlkj izkf/kdkjh ls rkRi;Z vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ls gS blfy, ;g tkudkjh vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh dks gksuh pkfg, fd mUgksaus fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk ugha fd;kA mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd m0 iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 dh /kkjk&60 ds vuqlkj Vs.Mj ,oa mlds Hkqxrku ds ekeys esa vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ,oa /kkjk&68 ds v/khu izkfof/kd foHkkxksa ds fo'ks"k dkfeZd }kjk izLrqr izkDdyu ,oa ctV ys[kkaduksa ds vk/kkj ij Hkqxrku gqvk gSA ftlesa fuokZfpr tu izfrfuf/k dks nks"kh ugha dgk tk ldrk gS] cfYd jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh HkkWfr dk;Z dj jgs] mUgs fu;eksa@'kklukns'kksa dk /;ku j[kdj mRrjnkf;Ro fuoZgu djuk pkfg,A vr% eq>s bl vkjksi ls eqDr j[kk tk;A foospuk%& 'kklukns'k la[;k&609@ukS&9&2007&249t@06] fnukad 26-02-2007 esa ;g O;oLFkk dh x;h gS fd :0 5-00 yk[k rFkk vf/kd /kukjkf'k ds Vs.Mj ftykf/kdkjh dk;kZy; ij [kksys tk;sxsa rFkk : 500 yk[k ls de vkx.kuk ds Vs.Mj fudk; dk;kZy; ij [kksys tk ldrs gSaA uxj iapk;r] vesBh ls 21 vn~n fuekZ.k dk;Z fcuk uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh Lohd`fr ds djk;k x;kA vkjksi esa mfYyf[kr dk;Z la[;k&1 ls 9] 12 ls 14 dqy 12 fuekZ.k ftudh ykxr :0 44-16 yk[k gS] ,d gh Bsdsnkj ls djkdj Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA fuekZ.k dk;Z 17 ls 20 Hkh ,d gh QeZ ls djk;k x;k rFkk fuekZ.k dk;Z la0&1 ls 15 tcfd ykxr :0 31-31 yk[k Fkh] fdUrq bldk Hkqxrku :0 51-51 yk[k fd;k x;kA fuekZ.k dk;Z 8] 9 mi 10&12 dk vkx.ku ewY; dze'k% 27-62 yk[k rFkk 95-27 yk[k FkkA ftls pkj fgLlksa esa ckWVdj dk;Z dkjk;k x;kA mDr fuekZ.k dk;ksZa dk fooj.k Hkh ,sls lekpkj&i=ksa esa fn;lk x;k tks LFkkuh; rks Fkk ijUrq mldk lapj.k i;kZIr :i ls ugha FkkA vr% mDr dk;ksZa dks fcuk cksMZ dh Lohd`fr ds djk;k x;kA 'kklukns'k fnukad 26-02-2007 dk mYya?ku djrs gq;s dk;Z djk;s x;sA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr dk;ksZa esa fufgr /kujkf'k dks xcu djus ds mn~ns'; ls dk;Zokgh dh x;hA fdlh Hkh Lrj ij fu;ekuqdwy dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZA mDr d`R; ds fy;s v/;{k iw.kZr;k nks"kh gSA mDr vkjksi muds Åij izekf.kr gksrk gSA Whether the tender notices, in this charge, were published in a newspaper having wide circulation or not and the newspaper in which they were published was circulated in a large area was not examined by means of any specific evidence. Whether the minimum tender bids were accepted and under whose approval, payments were made, was also not analyzed and without any evidence, the inquiry officer arrived at a conclusion that certain amounts of money of the institution had been embezzled by the petitioner.
43. Charge no.8; explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼8½ uxj iapk;r vesBh ds fuekZ.k dk;Z foKkiu **Lora= lans'k y[kuÅ* esa fnuksad 13-2-2013 ds vad esa izdk'ku fcuk uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh Lohd`fr ds djk;k x;k tks fd O;kid izlkj dk lekpkj i= ugha gS rFkk fcuk cksMZ ds Lohd`fr fd;s x;s vkx.ku /kujkf'k :i;k 31]31]005-00 ds lkis{k :i;k 51]52]685-00 vf/kd dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk foRrh; vfu;ferrk gS] ftlsd fy, vki nks"kh ,oa iw.kZ mRrnk;h gSA lk{;& ds :i esa uxj iapk;r cksMZ vesBh ds dk;Zokgh iaftdk fooj.k dh izfr layXud gS] ¼layXud&[k rFkk M rFkk fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k 8 ls 14 rd dh iz=kofy;ksa ds m)j.k½ v/;{k dk mRrj%& vkjksi &8 ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd tSlk fd mi;qZDr fcUnq&4 esa fd;k x;k gS fd 'kklukns'k la[;k&609@ukS&9&2007&08@06] fnukad 26-2-2007 ls Li"V gS fd izkf/kdjh vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh ,oa m0 iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 dh /kkjk&63 ds v/khu izkfof/kd foHkkxksa ds fo'ks"k fu;qDr dkfeZdksa }kjk izkDdyu rS;kj fd;k tkrk gS rkfd mlh izkDdyu ds vuqlkj fufonk vkadyu djds dk;Z djk;k tk; vFkkZr tks fu;e@'kklukns'k dk cks/k mDr nksuksa dkfeZdksa }kjk djk;k x;k] mlh ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh gqbZA blds vfrfjDr ;g mYys[k djuk gS fd lk{; ds :i esa layXud fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k&8 ls 14 rd ds vk/kkj ij :0 3131005-00 ds lkis{k losZ'k dqekj Bsdsnkj dks 'kq) /kujkf'k :0 2377425-00 o eSllZ vkflQ dka0 dks :0 1222030-00 Hkqxrku fd;k vFkkZr dqy :0 3619425-00 dk Hkqxrku gqvkA bl izdkj :0 36-19&31-31¾4-48 dh fHkUurk gqbZ vuqekfur vkadyu vujkf'k vkSj okLrfod /kujkf'k esa varj ,d vksj tgkW LokHkkfod izfdz;k gS] ogha nwljh vksj lkexzh vkfn dh njksa esa gqbZ vpkud o`f) Hkh bldk dkjd gSA oSls Hkh fudk; ds dk;ksZa esa ih0MCyw0Mh0 ds gh Schedule of Rate dk gh vuqlj.k fd;k tkrk gsA ;gh dkj.k gS fd ih0MCyw0Mh0 dh njksa esa o"kkZuqo"kZ 10% dh o`f) gksrh gSA :i;s 4-88 dh fHkUurk dks vfu;ferrk ugha dgk tk ldrk gS cfYd m0 iz0 uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e&1916 dh /kkjk&95 ds vuqlkj fofu;fer dk;Zokgh gSA d`i;k bl nks"k ls eq>s eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk%& mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa v/;{k }kjk vius mRrj esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd vuqeksfnr vkx.ku ,oa okLrfod dk;Z esa LokHkkfod :i ls fHkUurk gksrh gSA fuekZ.k dk;Z la[;k&8 ls 14 rd ds dk;kZsa ij vkx.ku /kujkf'k :0 31-31 yk[k ds lkis{k :0 51-51 yk[k dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus esa cksMZ dk vuqeksnu izkIr ugha fd;kk x;kA cksMZ dk vuqeksnu izkIr djus dk nkf;Ro v/;{k dk gh gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr vkx.ku ls vf/kd /kujkf'k dk dk;Z djk;s tkus dh n'kk esa mlds iwoZ iqujhf{kr vkx.ku rS;kj dj Lrj ls vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd ugha fd;k x;k gSA fuekZ.k dk;Z dk foKkiu Hkh Lora= lans'k] y[kuÅ esa djk;k x;k] tks ,d izpfyr v[kckj ugha FkkA vr% dk;Z ds lkis{k fd;s x;s Hkqxrku esa xEHkhj vfu;ferrk dk vkjksi v/;{k ij izekf.kr gksrk gSA In respect of this charge, it is stated that the advertisement was published in a newspaper named "Swatantra Sandesh" which is not a newspaper having a wide circulation. Further, whether any resolution of the Board was obtained permitting the payment, was also not examined on the basis of any specific evidence. In this connection, how had the inquiry officer arrived at the finding that the revised estimate was not got approved by the competent authority is also not stated.
44. Charge no.9; explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼9½ uxj iapk;r vesBh esa 13 oas foRr vk;ksx dh laLrqfr;ksa ls ukyksa dk fuekZ.k djk;k x;kA mDr dk;ksZa dh fufonk LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa izdk'ku ugha djk;k x;kA bl izdkj 'kklukns'k ,oa foRrh; fu;eksa ds foijhr ikoj gkml ls buke okfjl ds [ksr ds ikl iqfy;k rd ukyk fuekZ.k ,oa eqgYyk 'kgtkniqj esa ekrk izlkn ds ?kj ls lkye rkykc rc ukyk fuekZ.k o vU; dk;ksZa gsrq vkx.ku /kujkf'k :i;k 9]57]969-00 ds lkis{k :i;k 13]95]667-00 dk vf/kd Hkqxrku dj foRrh; vfu;ferrk gS] ftlds fy, v/;{k iw.kZ :i ls nks"kh gSA lk{; ds :i esa uxj iapk;r vesBh dh i=kofy;ksa ds m)j.k] ¼layXud&´] B½ v/;{k dk mRrj%& vkjksi&9 ds lEcU/k djuk gS fd layXud 269 ij fnukad 04-02-2013 dks ftykf/kdkjh y[kuÅ ds d;kZy; esa [kksyh xbZ fuonk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z gqvkA ftlesa ikWoj gkÅl beke okfjl ds [ksr ds ikl iqfy;k rd ukyk o 'kkgtkniqj esa o ekrk izlkn ds ?kj ls lkye rkykc rd ukyk ij vuqekfur ykxr :0 ¼605264-00$ 352705-00½¾957969-00 tcfd tykiwfrZ ds vUrxZr gS.MiEi ejEer lkexzh :0 103350-00 Bksl vof'k"V inkFkZ dk izcU/ku dwM+k xkM+h :0 105000-00 $ dwM+knku :0 192500-00 ij dk;Z djk;k x;k gS tks :0 ¼957969-00$103350-00$105000-00$192500-00½¾1358819-00 ds lkis{k :0 1358819-00 dk gh O;; gqvk gSA vr,o fudk; dks ,d iSls dh Hkh gkfu ugha gqbZ gSA vr% dFku vuqfpr o fujk/kkj gSA d`i;k bl nks"k ls eq>s eqDr j[kk tk;A foospuk%& mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa v/;{k dk mRrj xzkg~; ugha gSA uxj iapk;r] vesBh ds dk;Z dks LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr u djkdj nSfud lekpkj i= vkt ds cyjkeiqj ds vad ds izdkf'kr djk;k x;k] ftldk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha FkkA ;g dk;Zokgh ek= vius ilUn ds Bsdsnkj Jh losZ'k dqekj dks fn;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls dh x;hA blh lanHkZ xr iqfy;k ukyh fuekZ.k ,oa vU; dk;ksZa gsrq :0 957969-00 lkis{k :0 1395667-00 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA ;g dk;Z Hkh mlh Bsdsnkj ls djk;k x;kA bl dk;Zokgh esa v/;{k }kjk foRrh; vfu;ferrk ds lkFk&lkFk nq:fHklaf/k Hkh dh x;h izrhr gksrh gSA vr% ;g vkjksi iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrh gSA Just because the work order was given to the same contractor, could not have been a ground to doubt the integrity of the petitioner. The publication in the newspaper 'Aaj' alone could not have led to inference that this was not a widely circulated newspaper. Without taking any evidence in this regard, the petitioner was found to be guilty of making payment of more than the earlier sanctioned amount.
The petitioner had specifically stated in her explanation that the estimated expenditure and the amount actually spent were exactly the same but the inquiry officer disagreed with this explanation without showing the basis for such disagreement in his inquiry report.
45. Charge no.10; explanation of the petitioner and the conclusion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼10½ uxj iapk;r vesBh esa vuqeksfnr ykxr ls vf/kd /kujkf'k dk izdk'k dEiuh dk 30 K.V.A :i;k 6]54]700-00 ,oa 40 K.V.A- :i;k 7]15]500-00 dk tujsVj dz; fd;k x;kA fufonk dk izdk'ku LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa ugha fd;k x;kA tujsVj dz; l{ke vf/kdkjh ¼ftykf/kdkjh] y[kuŽ dh fcuk Lohd`fr izkIr fd;s fd;k x;kA dz; fd;s x;s tujsVj izdk'k dEiuh dk gS tks vU; dEifu;ksa dh rqyuk esa de izfrf"Br gSA bl izdkj vkids }kjk euekus v/;{k dk mRrj%& vkjksi&10 ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd uxj iapk;r vesBh esa vuqekfur ykxr ls vf/kd /kujkf'k dk izdk'k dEiuh dk 33 ds-oh-,- :- 654700-00 ,oa 40 ds- oh- ,- :- 715500-00 dk dz; fd;k x;kA fufonk LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa izdk'ku djds ftykf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds fcuk dz; djds vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx fd;k x;k gS] dk ykNau xyr ,o vuqfpr gS D;ksafd tkWp vk[;k ds lkFk layXu vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r vesBh dks lEcksf/kr ftykf/kdkjh dk ia=kd&05@Vh-,-lh- fnukWad 02-01-2013 }kjk fn, ftykf/kdkjh vkns'kksa ds v/khu lekpkj i= vkt ,oa LorU= lans'k esa izdk'ku gsrq Hsktk x;k RkFkk fufonk vkea=.k dks ftykf/kdkjh y[kum ds dk;kZy; ds d{k la[;k&36 esa [kksyk x;k rFkk U;wure nj o xq.koRrk okys lqesjxat ,.M dEiuh] flfoy ykbu] ckjkcadh dks vkiwfrZ dk Bsdk nsdj dz;k fd;k x;k] ftldksa rduhdh :i ls Jh xkSjh 'kadj xqIrk] voj vfHk;Urk us ijh{k.k fd;k rFkk Hkqxrku gsrq laLrqfr dh xbZ gSA pwWafd dk;Z dk izFke deZpkjh voj vfHk;Urk gh gksrk gS vkSj mlds }kjk lkexzh dh xqa.koRrk dh ij[k dh yh xbZ Fkh vr,o ts-bZ- dh laLrqfr ij fd;k x;k Hkqxrku fdlh Hkh n'kk esa vfu;fer ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA dk;Z ;kstuk ftykf/kdkjh }kjk Lohd`rkFkZ izLrkfor jgkA l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fn, x;s vuqeksnu ds vk/kkj ij Hkqxrku fd, tkus ij foRrh; vfu;ferk dk iz'u ugha mBrk gS D;ksafd ftykf/kdkjh y[kum ds ia=kd&05@Vh-,-lh- fnukad 02-01-2013 }kjk foRrh; ,oa iz'kklfud Lohd`fr izkIr jghA vRk% yxk;k x;k vkjksi fujk/kkj gS ftlls eq>s eqDr j[kk tk;A foospuk%& mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa v/;{k dk ;g dgk x;k gS fd ftykf/kdkjh dh vuqefr i= fnukad 02-01-2013 ds v/khu lekpkj i= vkt ,oa Lora= lans'k esa izdk'ku gsrq Hkstk x;k rFkk fufonk vkeaf=r dh x;hA ftykf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; d{k esa fufonk [kksyh x;hA U;wure nj ,oa xq.koRrk okys Bsdsnkj dks vkiwfrZ gsrq Bsdk nsdj dz; fd;k x;kA blh izdkj 33 ds-oh-,- ,oa 40 ds-oh-,- ds tujsVj izfd;k ds vUrxZr dz; fd;s x;sA rF;kRed fLFkfr ;g ik;h x;h fd 33 ds-oh-,- tujsVj lsV lekpkj i= nSfud lekpkj i= vkt] xks.Mk ,oa Lora= lans'k esa fufonk izdk'ku djk;k x;k rFkk 40 ds-oh-,- gsrq LFkkuh; lekpkj i= nSfud vkt] jk;cjsyh esa djk;k Xk;kA tujsVj lsV ds dz; gsrq fdlh yksdfiz; lekpkj i= esa fufonk izdkf'kr ugha dh x;h rFkk nksuksa tujsVj lsV fcuk [kqyh izfrLi/kkZ ds dz; fd;s x;sA vr% ;g vkjksi v/;{k ij iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA In his conclusion, the inquiry officer states that for 33 KVA generator set, the tender publication was made in the newspaper, which was not having wide circulation and, therefore, there was no open competition between the tender bidders. The area of circulation of the newspaper in which the tender notice was published was not upto the required standard, as compared to other newspapers, should have been duly inquired into but what inquiry was made in this regard is again not mentioned at all in the discussion and conclusion of the inquiry officer.
46. Charge no.11; explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the conclusion and discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼11½ uxj iapk;r vesVh }kjk lkQ~Vos;j dz; gsrq fufonk dk izdk'ku lk/; fgUnh nSfud Lora= lans'k y[kum esa fd;k x;kA mDr lekpkj i= O;kid izpkj&izlkj dk u gksus ds dkj.k fcuk Li/kkZ dh QeZ ds :i;k 3]910565-00 dk Hkqxrku QeZ esllZ ek'kZ lkQ~Vos;j lY;wlj] y[kum dks fd;k x;kA bl izdkj fcuk l{ke Lrj dh Lohd`[email protected] ds lR;kiu ds QeZ dks lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k dk vfu;fer :i ls iw.kZ Hkqxrku fd;s tkus gsrq vki nks"kh ,oa mRrjnk;h gSA vkidk vfHkdFku larks"ktud ugha gSA lkQ~Vos;j dz; fufonk dk izdk'ku fcuk O;kid izpkj&izlkj fd;s euekus rjhds ls Lora= lans'k] y[kum esa izdk'ku fd;k x;kA O;kid izpkj&izlkj u gksus ds dkj.k fcuk izfrLi/kkZ ds [;kfr izkIr QessZ Hkkx ugha ysa ikrh gSA bl izdkj fu/kkfjr izfdz;k dks viuk;s fcuk lk/kkj.k QeksZ dks vkeaf=r djus dh vkidh izo`fRr gSA vr% fu;eksa@'kklukns'k ds vuq:i fcuk fufonk izfdz;k viuk;s es- ek'kZ lkQ~Vos;j lY;w'ku] y[kum ls lkQ~Vos;j dz; fd;s tkus ij v/;{k nks"kh gSA v/;{k dk mRrj%& vkjksi&11 ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k djuk gS fd lkQ~Vos;j dz; gsrq fu;ekuqlkj fufonk vkea=.k dj U;wure nj okys eS- lkQ~Vos;j lwy'ku] y[kum ls dz; gqvk] tks tkWap vf/kdkjh }kjk layXud ds :i esa izLrqr lk{; Lo;a dks fu;fer dk;Zokgh iznf'kZRk djrh gSA ekxZ izdk'k lkexzh dz; gsrq vYidkyhu fufonk fnukad 16-05-2013 ugha oju~ 16-05-2013 ftlesa ,d lIrkg dk le; Fkk vFkkZRk~ vYidkyhu fufonk tks ifjgk;Z@vfuok;Z dk;Z gksrk gS] ds fy, gksrk gS] fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk U;wure nj okys lqesjxat ,.M dEiuh] flfoy ykbu] ckjkcadh dks fu;ekuqlkj viwfrZ vkns'k fn, tkus dh fufonk nj Lohdkj Fkh rFkk vkiwfrZ dh xbZ lkexzh dk voj vfHk;Urk }kjk iwjh ijh{k.kksaijkUr Hkqxrku gqvk gS] fufonk izfrLi/kkZ ,oa ikjnf'kZr dk Lo:i gS ftlesa fu;ekuqlkj U;wure nj okys dks Lohd`fr nh tkrh gSA bl ifjis{; esa dk;Zokgh gqbZ gS] ftlesa dksbZ foRrh; vfu;ferrk ugha gqbZ gSA vr% eq>s bl vkjksi ls eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk%& mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa v/;{k }kjk ;g Li"Vhdj.k gS fd lkQ~Vos;j gsrq fufonk vkeaf=r dj U;wure nj okys eS- ek'kZ lkQ~Vos;j lY;w'ku] y[kum ls dz; fd;k x;kA ekxZ izdk'k lkexzh dz; gsrq vYidkfyd fufonk ,d lIrkg dk le; nsrs gs;s izdkf'kr dh x;h vkSj U;wure okyh d- eS- lqesjxat ,.M dEiuh] flfoy ykbu] ckjkcadh dks fu;ekuqlkj vkiwfrZ ds vkns'k fn;s x;sA mDr Li"Vhdj.k esa ;g ugha crk;k x;k fd lkQ~Vos;j ds dz; dh fufonk yksdfiz; lekpkj i= Lora= lans'k vkSj ekxZ izdk'k gsrq nSfud vkt ds jk;cjsyh vad esa D;ksa izdkf'kr djk;k x;k tcfd uxj iapk;r vesBh y[kum ds lehi gksus ds dkj.k y[kum ds lHkh yksdfiz; lekpkj i= i<+s tkrs gSA bl izdkj nqjfHklaf/k dj vius ilUn dh dEiuh eS-ek'kZ lkQ~Vos;j lY;w'ku] y[kum dks :- 3910565-00 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k vkSj blh izdkj ekxZ izdk'k lkexzh dk dz; Hkh fcuk izfrLi/kkZ ds eS- lqesjxat ,.M dEiuh] flfoy ykbu] ckjkcadh dks :- 1471250-00 dk Hkqxrkju fd;k x;kA izfrLi/kkZ LoLFk u gksus ds dkj.k vf/kd njksa ij nksuksa vkbVe dz; fd;s x;sA vr% mDr vkjksi iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA Here again, the inquiry officer states that the tender notices were got published in improper newspaper and not the ones having wider circulation and accordingly under a conspiracy, the bids of specified companies were accepted and payments were made to them. Which of the newspaper could have given a healthier competition, is not elucidated in the discussion and the conclusion of the inquiry officer.
47. Charge no.12, explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the discussion and conclusion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼12½ uxj iapk;r cksMZ dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk ,oa LFkkuh; lekpkj esa fufonk dk foKkiu fcuk izdk'ku djk;s Qkfxax e'khu :i;k 1]37]500-00 dk dz; fd;k x;kA Mªx ,oa dz; fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;s fcuk izfrLi/kkZ ds vfu;fer :i ls :- 2]96130-00 jlk;fud nokvksa@lQkbZ lkexzh dk dz; esllZ fdj.k b.Vjizkbtst] bykgkckn QeZ ls fd;k x;kA bl izdkj dz; fue;ksa dk fcuk ikyu fd;s vfu;fer Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ij foRRkh; vfu;ferrk djus gsrq vki nks"kh gSA lk{;& ds :i esa uxj iapk;r vesBh dh i=koyh ds m)gj.k ¼laYkXud&n½ v/;{k dk mRRkj& vkjksi&12 ds lEcU/k esa mYYks[k djuk gS fd Jh _"kHk feJk ds izkFkZuk i= ij fofHkUUk lHkklnksa ds gLrk{kj ;qDr izkf/kdkjh dk IkzLrko ek¡xk x;k gS] tks lHkklnksa ds lEEkfr o CkSBd lkn`'; gS D;ksafd tu LokLF; fgr esa dk;Z fd;k tkuk vfr vko';d Fkk rkfd chekfj;ksa ls turk dks futkr fey lds blfy, Qkfxax e'khu dk dz;] fQukby] eSYkkfFk;ku fyfDoM dk fufonk@dksVs'ku izkIr dj U;wure nj okys Bsdsnkj ls vkiwfrZ djkbZ xbZ gSA lk{; ds :i esa tk¡p fjiksVZ esa lk{; miyC/k gSA vr% fu;eksa dk ikyu u fd, tkus dk nks"kkjksi.k fujk/kkj gSA d`i;k eq>s bl vkjksi ls eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk& v/;{k }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd Jh _"kHk feJk ds izkFkZuk i= ij fofHkUu lHkklnksa ds gLrk{kj ;qDr izkf/kdkjh dk IkzLrko ekaxk x;k gS tks lHkklnksa ds lEEkfr o cSBd lkn`'; tu LoLFk fgr esa Qkfxzax e'khu dk dz;] fQuk;y] eSykfFk;ku] fyfDoM dh fufonk@dksVs'ku izkIr dj U;wure nj okys Bsdsnkj ls vkiwfrZ djk;h x;h gSa mDr njsa larks"ktud ugha gSA D;ksafd mDr dk;Z esa fu;ekuqlkj dz; izfdz;k ugha viuk;h x;hA Qkfxax e'khu dk dz; uxj iapk;r] vesBh cksMZ dh Lohd`fr izkIr fd;s fcuk fd;k x;k vkSj fufonk dk izdk'ku LFkkuh; lekpkj i= esa u djkdj nSfud vkt] jk;cjsyh esa djk;k x;kA mDr vfu;fer dz; izfdz;k ds fy;s v/;{k iw.kZr;k nks"kh gSA vr% mDr vkjksi v/;{k ij fl) gksrk gSA In this charge again, it is stated that the tender notices were not got published in local newspaper but the newspaper "Dainik Aaj", in which the tender notices were published, was not in circulation in the local area, is not confirmed by the evidence taken during the inquiry. Hence, on this sole basis, which is by itself unsubstantiated, a conclusion to the effect, as stated above, cannot be held as justified.
48. Charge no.13; explanation of the petitioner and the conclusion and discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k ¼13½ uxj iapk;r vesBh dks foRRkh; o"kZ 2013&14 ds fy, fofHkUUk enksa esa Lohd`r ctV ds foijhr fuEu fooj.k ds vuqlkj vf/kd Hkqxrku fd;k x;k& en dk uke ctV izkfo/kku :-
O;; dh x;h /kujkf'k :-
iFk izdk'k 1]05]000-00 15]54]770]00 ty laiwfrZ gsrq tujsVj 8]00]000-00 13]03]742-00 lkQ~Vos;j fodkl gsrq & 1]82]692]00 mDRk enksa esa izkfo/kkfur /kujkf'k ds lkis{k vf/kd /kujkf'k O;; fd;k tkuk xEHkhj vfu;ferrk gS] ftlds fy, v/;{k nks"kh ,oa mRRkjnk;h gSA lk{; ds :i esa& uxj iapk;r vesBh] y[kuÅ ds vk;& fooj.k o"kZ 2013&14 laYkXud&8 ¼rhu i`"B½ v/;{k dk mRRkj& vkjksi&13 ds lEcU/k esa mYYks[k djuk gS fd iFk izdk'k] ty lEiwfRkZ gsrq tujsVj ,oa lkQ~Vos;j fodkl gsrq O;; dh xbZ /kujkkf'k ,0vkbZ0ch0ih0 ds vUrXkZr izkIr /kujkf'k ds lkIks{k fd;k x;k gS] ftlds O;; gsrq vuqefr ftykf/kdkjh] y[kuÅ ds i=kad&05@Vh0,0lh0 fnukad 02-01-2013 }kjk izkIr gqbZ FkhA ftykf/kdkjh }kjk nh xbZ vuqefr ij fdlh izdkj dk iz'ufpUg yxkuk] vijks{k #i ls ftykf/kdkjh dks vkjksfir fd;k tkuk gSA vr% l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ls fd;k x;k dk;Z O;; fu;ekuqlkj gSA vr% eq>s bl vkjksi ls eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk& bl vkjksi ds laca/k esa v/;{k dk dFku gS fd iFk izdk'k] ty lEiwfrZ gsrq tujsVj ,oa lkQ~Vos;j fodkl gsrq O;; dh x;h /kujkf'k ,0vkbZ0ch0ih0 ds vUrxZr izkIr /kujkf'k ds lkis{k dh x;h] ftldh vuqefr ftykf/kdkjh y[kum ds i= fnukad 02-01-2013 }kjk izkIr gq;h FkhA v/;{k }kjk x;k Li"Vhdj.k xzkg~; ugh gSA ctV izkfo/kku ls vf/kd /kujkf'k dk O;; fd;k tkuk xEHkhj foRrh; vfuf;ferrk gSA foRrh; o"kZ 2013&14 es uxj iapk;r vesBh ds vk;&O;;d es ty lEiwfrZ gsrq tujsVj ds en esa 8-00 yk[k ds lkis{k #0 13-03 yk[k iFk izdk'k en esa 1-05 yk[k ds lkis{k 15-54 rFkk lkQ~Vos;j fodkl gsrq dksbZ izkfo/kku u gksus ij Hkh 1-82 yk[k dk O;; fd;k x;kA mDr O;; fdlh Hkh izdkj ls rdZlaxr ,oa fu;elaxr ugh gSA Lohd`r ctV ls vf/kd dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk xEHkhj foRrh; vfu;ferrk gS] ftlds fy, v/;{k nks"kh gSA vr% ;g vkjksi mu ij izekf.kr gksrk gSA The discussion and the conclusion of the inquiry officer is to the effect that the amount spent is more than the amount allocated in the budget and, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of financial irregularity. How much fund was allocated in the budget and how much was actually spent should have been proved by the relevant registers and no such register and the entry therein is specifically mentioned in this discussion and the conclusion.
The explanation, as contained above, clearly shows that the amount was spent after getting due permission from the District Magistrate vide letter dated 02.01.2013 and in reply thereof, the inquiry officer says that this explanation is not enough. Can such an act be done with the permission of the District Magistrate or not, is left to be examined by the inquiry officer.
49. Charge no.14; explanation of the petitioner in respect thereof and the conclusion and discussion of the inquiry officer are extracted as hereunder:
vkjksi la[;k(14) uxj iapk;r vesBh dk [kkrk la[;k&415502010005754 ;wfud cSad vkQ bf.M;k esa gSA mDr [kkrs ls #i;k 54-23 yk[k lafnX/k ,oa vfu;fer vkgj.k fd;k x;k gSA tuin dks"kkxkj y[kum ls fnukad 27-6-13 dks #0 11]94]514-00] fnukad 28-06-13 dks #0 11]94]514-00 rFkk fnukad 4-7-13 dks #0 37]43]890-00 dqy #i;k 61]32]918 vkgfjr dj mijksDr cSad [kkrk esa tek fd;k x;k rFkk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA uxj iapk;r vesBh dk izHkkj ns[k pqds mi ftykf/kdkjh] eksguykyxat }kjk fnukad 1&6&2013 ls fnukad 8&7&2013 rd dh vof/k es muds }kjk uxj iapk;r vesBh ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh psd gLrk{kfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj dks"kkxkj ls #0 54-23 yk[k dh /kujkf'k QthZ rjhd ls vgfjr dj Hkqxrku fd;s tkus esa foRrh; vfu;ferk fd;s tkus ij vki nks"kh ,oa mRrjnk;h gSA lk{; #i esa& psd iath] dS'kcqd rFkk cSad [kkrk dh izfof"V;ka Union Bank of India layXud&u]i]Q v/;{k dk mRrj& vkjksi&14 es mfYyf[kr fnukad 01-06-2013 ls 08-07-2013 rd dh vof/k es dksbZ psd uxj iapk;r izHkkjh mi ftykf/kdkjh eksguykyxat] y[kum ls u gksus ds lEcU/k esa Li"V djuk gS fd tuin dks"kkxkj ls vkgfjr /kujkf'k uxj ikfydk ds [kkrk la[;k&415502010009754 es tek Fkh] ds iwoZ Bsds Bsdsnkjksa }kjk muds cdk;k Hkqxrku ds fy, c<+rs ncko dks ns[krs gq, mUgs Hkqxrku ls lEcfU/kr psd lkaRouk gsrq iwoZ es fuxZr dj fn, x;s FksA foRrh; gLr iqfLrdk [k.M&5 ds fy;e&62 es izkfo/kku gS fd tkjh fd, tkus ds i'pkr rhu ekg ds Hkhrj fdlh Hkh le; psd dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldsxk A bl i`"BHkwfe es psd fuxZr dj fn, x;s Fks] rkfd uxj ikfydk es 'kkafr LFkkfir jgs vFkkZr Bsdsnkj@Jfed v'kkfUr u mRIkUu dj ldsA blds vfrfjDr deZpkfj;ksa ds osru HkRrs bR;kfn muds mlh cSad (;wfu;u cSad vkQ bf.M;k) essa [kkrs gksus ds cSad ,Mokbl ds vk/kkj ij muds [kkrs esa /ku cSad Lrj ls LFkkukUrfjr gks tkrk gSA blh izdkj vU; Bsdsnkj ;kfu ;fn mlh cSad esa [kkrk gksrk gS] mlds Hkh ,Mokbl ds vk/kkj ij LFkkukUrfjr gks tkrs gsa] ftlds fy, psd dkVus dh vko';drk ugh jg tkrh gSA blfy, fnukad 01-06-2013 ls 08-07-2013 rd uxj iapk;r izHkkjh mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk psd dkVus dh vko';drk ugha mRiUu gqbZA fnukad 14-05-2013 ls 18-07-2013 rd cSad ds fMikftV@foMªky ds fooj.k layXu gSA fcUnq&11 esa n'kkZbZ x;h /kujkf'k dk fooj.k fuEukuqlkj mYys[k dj lek/kku fd;k tk jgk gS& 1- fnukad 27-06-2013 dks tek /kujkf'k #0 1194514-00 2- fnukad 28-06-2013 dks tek /kujkf'k #0 1194514-00 3- fnukad 04-07-2013 dks tek /kujkf'k #0 3743890-00 dqy /kujkf'k ;ksx% #0 6132918-00 mDr /kujkf'k ds lkis{k fnukad 28-06-2013 ls 18-07-2013 rd fudklh vkgfjr /kujkf'k #0 5460472-00 [kkrs esa vo'ks"k /kujkf'k #0 744708-00¾ #0 6205180-00 ftlesa fnukad 07-06-2013 ds iwoZ fnukad 20-06-2013 dks [kkrs esa vo'ks"k /kujkf'k #0 72262-00 dks ?kVkus ij #0 6205180-00&72262-00 ¾ #0 6132918-00 gqbZ] tks tek /kujkf'k ds lerqY; gSA bl izdkj dks"kkxj ls ftruk /kujkf'k vkgfjr fd;k x;k] mldk Hkqxrku deZpkfj;ksa@ Bsdsnkjksa dks fd;k x;k gS] tks ;qDrk;qDr gSA vr% dksbZ QthZ vkgfjr dj Hkqxrku ugh fd;k x;k] yxk;k x;k vkjksi fujk/kkj gSA d`i;k bl vkjksi ls eq>s eqDr j[kh tk;A foospuk%& v/;{k }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa eq[; #i ls ;g dgk gs fd iwoZ Bsdsnkjksa }kjk muds cdk;k Hkqxrku ds fy;s c<+rs ncko rFkk 'kkafr O;oLFkk ds mnns'; ls lkaRouk gsrq iwoZ esa psd fuxZr dj fn;s x;s Fks tcfd Jh fouksn dqekj JhokLro] rRdkyhu vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh fnukad 31-05-2013 dks lsokfuo`Rr gq;s FksA fnukad 01-06-2013 ls 08-07-2013 rd vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxj iapk;r vesBh dk izHkkj miftykf/kdkjh eksguykyxat dks ftykf/kdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k Fkk fdUrq miftykf/kdkjh eksguykyxat }kjk uxj iapk;r vesBh ds fdlh Hkh fcy ,oa psd ij gLrk{kj ugh fd;k x;k A bl chp uxj iapk;r vesBh ds ;wfu;u cSad vkQ bf.M;k ds [kkrk la[;k& 415502010005754 esa fnukad 27-06-2013 ls 04-07-2013 rd dqy #0 61-32 yk[k dh /kujkf'k dks"kkxkj ls izkIr dj [kkrs es tek dh x;hA mDr tek dh x;h /kujkf'k esa ls fnukad 28-06-2013 ls fnukad 18-07-2013 ds e/; fofHkUu psdksa ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA psd fuxZr gksus dh frfFk;ka psd iaftdk@ dS'kcqd esa fnukad 28-06-2013 ls fnukad 18-07-2013 ds e/; ntZ gSA cSad [kkrs es i;kZIr /kujkf'k u gksus ds ckotwn psd tkjh djuk foRrh;@ vkijkf/kd d`R; gSA v/;{k }kjk vius mRrj es ;g feF;k dFku fd;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk ,Mokal psd fuxZr fd;s x;s D;ksafd psd iaftdk rFkk dS'kcqd es psd fuxZr djus dh frfFk;ksa fnukad 28-06-2013 ls 18-07-2013 ds e/; ntZ gS vkSj muds }kjk gLrk{kfjr gSA vr muds mij tuin dks"kkxkj ls #0 61-32 yk[k dh /kujkf'k vkgfjr dj QthZ rjhds ls Hkqxrku fd;s tkus dk mDr vkjksi iw.kZr;k fl) gksrk gSA It is stated that the advance cheques were issued as the dates for issuing the same are mentioned in the cheque register and cash book by the petitioner. These entries were made and whether they were made in the regular course of business; and whether copies thereof were provided to the petitioner before seeking her explanation, is also not stated by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report.
50. After this inquiry report was sent, the State Government allowed an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation and of personal hearing and thereafter passed the impugned order, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
51. The disciplinary authority is required not only to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the delinquent but also apply its mind on the inquiry report as also the explanation submitted by the delinquent. If the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is examined in respect of each charge, it would be noticed that the charge, explanation of the petitioner in this regard, and the report of the inquiry officer has been quoted verbatim and the conclusion of the inquiry officer only says that the discussion of the inquiry officer is proper and the provision of the Act violated by the petitioner, is quoted. What is the basis for finding the report of the inquiry officer as proper, has not been expressed at all by the disciplinary authority in Annexure 1. Thereafter, the inquiry officer finding all the charges as proved, has proceeded to pass the impugned order. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that there has been proper application of mind by the disciplinary authority before passing of the impugned order.
52. In view of the aforesaid discussion, even if it is taken that non-submission of a fresh charge-sheet in the denovo inquiry against the petitioner, is not fatal to the respondents as the petitioner had sufficient notice of the charges against her, while in writing in her explanation, it can still be seen that the material proposed to and relied upon during the inquiry was not supplied to the petitioner. In absence of such material, the petitioner could not have been said to have a due opportunity to rebut the charges against her. Further, inspite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the findings were recorded without taking due evidence in this regard by the inquiry officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, as shown by annexure 1, has not duly applied its mind before awarding the punishment of removal from office to the petitioner, who was holding an elected office in a local self government.
53. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in our considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be termed as being in accordance with law. Therefore, the same deserves be set aside.
54. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure 1) removing the petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Nagar Panchayat, Amethi, District Lucknow is hereby set aside.
55. In the light of the aforesaid orders, the consequential action shall be taken without any undue delay by the respondents - authority so as to give effect to this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :-10th February, 2017 VNP/-
[Sanjay Harkauli,J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.]