Allahabad High Court
Dr. Ram Lal vs State Of U.P. Through Its Scet. Dept.Of ... on 25 September, 2019
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 1751 of 2004 Petitioner :- Dr. Ram Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Scet. Dept.Of Animal Husb. & 2 Counsel for Petitioner :- P.S. Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.08.2003, whereby the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (opposite party no.2) has directed for recovery of Rs.4358.50/- from his gratuity and 2% lifetime deduction from his pension.
Brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Immune Belt Scheme, Department of Animal Husbandry, Bahraich under stop gap arrangement on 28.12.1968. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner was approved by U.P. Public Service Commission. In the year, 1976, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Veterinary Officer, thereafter, he was promoted from time to time. On 31.07.2001, the petitioner was retired from the post of Deputy Director (Key Village) while he was posted in Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Badshah Bagh, U.P., Lucknow.
While the petitioner was posted at Azamgarh on the post of Deputy Director, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.06.1996 containing two charges. Firstly, the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.20,183.30/- through Bank Draft No.951899 dated 20.02.1988 for purchase of parts of Generator while he was posted as Project Officer, Deep Frozen Scheme, Urai, District Jalaun and those parts were kept in sealed box under direction of the petitioner and on being open few goods found useless and some shortage was also found resulting in loss of Rs.4,358.50/- for which the petitioner has been found guilty. Second charge is with regard to illegal appointment of their relatives on the post of Class-III and Class-IV. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 27.03.1997. The Inquiry Officer has submitted his report on 09.03.1999 to the Director, Animal Husbandry. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 16.08.2003 has been passed directing the authority concerned to recovery of Rs.4358.50/- from his gratuity and 2% lifetime deduction from his pension.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been punished twice for the same charges. The Inquiry Officer without following the procedure has conducted the inquiry. The Punishing Authority has taken a different view from the view taken by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report without assigning any reason.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the other persons, who have been found guilty for having committed grave misconduct in making appointment of Class-III and Class-IV posts even without having competence for the same were exonerated and no punishment has been imposed against them. The Inquiry Officer did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and has mentioned in his inquiry report that Rs.4,358.59 has been caused loss to the Government for which Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav, the then Store Keeper, R.N. Shive Harey and Dr. Ram Lal (petitioner), the then Project Officer, Deep Frozen Scheme, Urai, Jalaun have been held responsible equally in respect of charge no.1.
It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that so far as, the second charge regarding irregular appointment is concerned, the petitioner had already been given two adverse entries in year 1993-94 and 1994-95, therefore, the punishment of deduction from pension of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and contrary to the law established. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards certain documents.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of irregularities committed by him in purchase of spare parts as Project Officer and in the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are correct.
Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the punishing authority after considering the inquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner has rightly passed the impugned order after getting approval from the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, therefore, the order does suffer from any illegality. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders.
Learned Standing Counsel has again submitted that so far as entries is concerned, it has been evaluated and given to an employee on yearly basis, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a punishment awarded to the petitioner for the charges which are levelled against him. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in the impugned order and the penalties which are imposed by the competent authority/ punishment authority is within the jurisdiction and after following the procedure and as per the Rules and Regulations. Therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
While conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply but during inquiry, the petitioner has not taken any objection to the extent that appropriate procedure has not been followed by the Inquiry Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to prove that the Selection Committee for appointment to Class-III and Class-Iv have been constituted in accordance with the relevant Rules and Government Orders and the appointments of his relative have not been given in violation of Rules and Regulations. I do not agree with the arguments that the Punishing Authority without assigning any reason awarded punishment in contravention of inquiry report.
After perusing the entire material available on record and the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 akverma