High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
S.K. Srivastava v. State Of Up & Others - WRIT - A No. - 21278 of 1996  RD-AH 18585 (3 December 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21278 of 1996
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner had been performing and discharging duty with Industrial Training Institute, Mirzapur . Qua one G.S. Sinch, allegations came forward that Cobalt Tool bits which had been issued to him, qua the same details of consumption had not been furnished, and he was asked to show cause and submit report, and further petitioner was also asked to furnish details, specifically on the issue, as to how many indents were issued under his signature and under what circumstances, petitioner had appended signature. Petitioner submitted reply to Principal on 21.10.1994. On 13.02.1995, petitioner submitted report. Thereafter report dated 09.04.1996 had been submitted, wherein, it was reflected that on account of such conduct of theirs a loss of Rs.54,063.34/- was caused to the Department. In the said report it was mentioned that there were lapses on the part of petitioner, inasmuch he had signed on the indent prepared by G.S. Singh and same has caused loss to the Department, as such one-fourth of the entire loss was directed to be recovered from the petitioner.
Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been mentioned that petitioner was Foreman and it was his duty to check the records of the instructors and to see that materials are issued as per requirements and thereafter to see as to whether materials purchased and supplied have not been misused. To this counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
Sri Yogesh Srivsastava, Learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that liability has been fastened on the shoulder of petitioner without affording him any opportunity of hearing, as such impugned action is vitiated and unsustainable.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that petitioner has filed reply to the show notice and in the report submitted lapses on the part of petitioner had been pointed out, as such liability to the extent of one-fourth of the losses has been fastened on the petitioner shoulder, which is just and proper and requires no interference by this Court.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner was Foreman and it was his duty to check the records of the instructors and to see that materials are issued as per requirements and thereafter to see as to whether materials purchased and supplied have not been misused. Record shows that lapses were there on the part of the petitioner and coupled with this, he admitted that on the indents, he had made signatures but same was done on the dictates of the Principal, and such lapses have been noted. Once this is the factual position and lapses have been admitted by the petitioner, then the liability which has been fixed, cannot be faulted.
Consequently, writ petition as has been framed and drawn, is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.