Allahabad High Court
L. K. Tripathi vs State Of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary & ... on 10 May, 2013
Bench: Vineet Saran, B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2553 of 2013 Petitioner :- L. K. Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Principal Secretary & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- G.K.Singh,V.K.Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.P.Mathur Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 26.11.2012 imposing the penalty of censure as well as withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.
The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as District Excise Officer, Mirzapur an incident occurred in which 11 persons died between 17.9.2010 and 18.9.2010 and two more persons died on 19.9.2010 as a result of consumption of spurious liquor. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.10.2010 by the State Government. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Administration) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The allegation against the petitioner was that while functioning as District Excise Officer, he did not take effective steps to see that no spurious liquor was sold in the District but the fact that 13 persons had died between 17.9.2010 to 19.9.2010 as a result of consumption of spurious liquor went to show the incompetence and lack of interest on the part of the petitioner in performing his duties. It was also alleged that no effective steps had been taken by the petitioner for stopping the illegal sale of countrymade spurious liquor in the District. The charges against the petitioner were supposed to be proved on the basis of three documents, namely;
(i) Letter of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur dated 17.9.2010.
(ii) Letter dated 21.9.2010 of the Joint Excise Commissioner, Varanasi.
(iii) Letter dated 22.9.2010 written by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Mirzapur.
The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 16.12.2010 stating that he had taken all effective steps to check the trade and sale of spurious liquor in his area. It was also pointed out that he had conducted a raid on the Farm House of one Sri Jeet Singh alias Guddu Singh on 26.6.2010 which had resulted in the seizure of a huge quantity of spurious countrymade liquor. The petitioner had also lodged an F.I.R. against the said Jeet Singh and proceedings were initiated against him for cancellation of his licence for the sale of countrymade liquor. He also referred to other raids carried out by him and measures taken by him to check the trade and sale of spurious countrymade liquor in his area.
According to the petitioner the first date of enquiry was 20.1.2011, on which date the petitioner appeared but nothing happened and no one was present on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges. On the other hand, the Inquiry Officer enquired from the petitioner as to what he wanted to say in his defence. The petitioner stated all the steps and measures were taken by him and the raids carried out by him to check the sale of spurious countrymade liquor in his area.
The case of the petitioner further is that no other date was fixed for the enquiry and thereafter simply relying upon the reply submitted by him to the charge sheet and the various queries of the Inquiry Officer answered by the petitioner on 20.1.2011, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to submit his Inquiry Report on 12.5.2011.
The case of the petitioner is that in the Inquiry Report, the Inquiry Officer has in fact recorded a finding that the petitioner had not been negligent or careless in the discharge of his official duties in checking the sale of spurious liquor and he had never shown unwillingness or lack of desire in performing his official duties. The Inquiry Officer has in fact held that the petitioner has taken all necessary steps to maintain a high standard of efficiency in the discharge of the official duties even of the staff working under him and has not acted in a mere cursory manner or by way of formality. It has however been noted at page 63 of the writ petition (internal page 6 of the Inquiry Report) that the reasons given by the petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet has force as despite the alertness and utmost care taken by the petitioner, 11 persons have died as a result of consumption of spurious liquor. In such a manner, the Inquiry Officer has fastened the blame on the petitioner only on the ground that 'somewhere some mistakes have occurred.' We have considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and in our opinion, having noted all the findings in favour of the petitioner the Inquiry Officer has proceeded to indict him on the charges mentioned in the charge sheet simply because 'somewhere some mistakes have occurred' without pin pointing as to who is responsible for this mistake. The petitioner has not been held liable for failure or negligence or devotion in the discharge of his duties. It is also interesting to note that along with petitioner three other persons, namely, (i) Sri Udai Pratap Verma, Excise Inspector (Enforcement), (ii) Sri Anand Singh, Head Constable (Enforcement), (iii) Sri Ashish Singh, Head Constable (Enforcement) were also issued similar charge sheets and disciplinary proceedings were also held against them but they have been exonerated and Udai Pratap Verma was let off with a warning. Similarly one Sri Shyam Bihari, Constable (Enforcement) has also been exonerated by order dated 31.1.2011. Thus, in spite of the report of the Inquiry Officer being in his favour, the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges only on the ground of suspicion and because the Department could not pin point as to who was responsible for the trade and sale of spurious countrymade liquor in the area which resulted in the death of 11 persons.
In the counter affidavit filed by the learned Standing Counsel the specific averments made by the petitioner with regard to Udai Pratap Verma, Anand Singh, Ashish Singh and Shyam Bihari Constable have not been denied and in fact the averments with regard to Shaym Bihari Constable made in para 20 of the writ petition have been admitted in para 13 of the counter affidavit.
Thus, on a consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order of the disciplinary authority and the other documents on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and punished by the impugned penalty order dated 26.11.2012 even though (as noted above) the Inquiry Report at page 63 of the writ petition records all the findings in favour of the petitioner. We thus find that there is no evidence on record to point the finger of accusation at the petitioner and that the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner only on the ground of suspicion because 'somewhere some mistakes have occurred.' Where the mistakes have occurred and who is responsible for the same has not been pin pointed.
For reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 cannot survive and is accordingly quashed.
Writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 10.5.2013
N Tiwari
(B. Amit Sthalekar, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)