Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.31782 of 2013 (Brij Mohan Saxena vs. State of U.P. & 4 others).

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that appellant-petitioner was initially appointed as Routine Grade Clerk in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited1. At the relevant point of time, he was working as Cashier in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, UPPCL. On 25.02.2000 electricity dues of Rs.4,81,499/- were collected from the consumers in special camps organized for that purpose and it was kept in the chest maintained in Khandiya Karyalaya (Divisional Office) in presence of Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) and also some other officials. Thereafter, the petitioner and Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer went to their homes.

10. Finally, the Enquiry Committee submitted the report on 22.03.2002, wherein it was found that when the petitioner was posted as Cashier in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, UPPCL, Mainpuri, he was entrusted with a key of the cash chest and the other key of the double lock was entrusted with Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer (Revenue). Both the persons counted the cash in cash chest at Rs.4,81,499/- and had closed the chest on 25.2.2000. The petitioner gave his key alongwith the key of Assistant Engineer to one Sukhram Singh, Dafedar. Both the keys were given to Shri Sukhram Singh, Dafedar and the entire cash in the chest was stolen. The petitioner was charged with misconduct for failing to safely keep and secure the keys entrusted to him. Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer was also charged with misconduct for failing to keep the keys safely and securely, as was entrusted to him in pursuance to the order of the Board No.2820 dated 22.11.1974.

"In the present case also it is not denied by the petitioner that the electricity duties amounting to Rs.4,81,499/- which had been collected during special camps organized for that purpose had been kept by him in the cash chest, which was locked by him in the presence of Assistant Engineer, Keshav Dev Pandey and thereafter he had handed over the keys to Sukhram Singh, Dafedar. Once this gross act of negligence in handing over the keys of the cash chest to Sukhram Singh was admitted by the petitioner, this Court fails to see as to what prejudice could be said to be caused to him simply because the copies of the statement of Assistant Engineer, Keshav Dev Panday and Sukhram Singh had not been supplied to the petitioner nor has the petitioner shown anywhere in any paragraph of the writ petition that if the statements of these two witnesses had been supplied to him he might have able to show that a different conclusion might have been drawn by the Enquiry Officer.

13. Sri Shesh Kumar further submitted that the appellant was chargesheeted with the charge of negligence alongwith two other persons namely Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer and Sukhram Singh, Dafedar. The charges levelled against the appellant-petitioner and Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer were almost identical in nature regarding handing over the keys to Sri Sukhram Singh, Dafedar but in the departmental proceeding, Sri Keshav Dev Pandey was only given punishment of withholding of 5% gratuity and for forfeiture of balance salary from the date of suspension to the date of superannuation. The appellant has been awarded extreme punishment of removal from service and more so, the punishment was awarded at the fag end of his service.