Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHANDRA CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 32014 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 233 (28 July 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 32014 OF 2003

Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi ------ Petitioner

 Vs.

State of U.P. & anr. ------       Respondents

______

Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J

Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.3.2003, by which a penalty of withholding 20% pension by the approval of His Excellency The Governor had been passed by the Competent Authority, i.e., Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in view of certain specific serious allegations, petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 29.1.1997 and one Shri Nemi Chandra, Joint Director, Consolidation was appointed the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, he was replaced by the District Collector, Mainpuri vide order dated 25.7.1997. As there were some administrative problems, vide order dated 17.3.1997, the Enquiry Officer was replaced by Additional Commissioner, Consolidation. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner having three charges and additional charge-sheet was given later on having two extra charges. The enquiry was held and all the five charges stood proved against him. As the petitioner in the meanwhile, retired on 31.5.1998, he was served a copy of the enquiry report along with the Show Cause Notice dated 12.12.2001. But no reply was filed by the petitioner, rather he submitted that he wanted to examine the record. He was informed that he could attend the office and examine the record by 30.12.2001, and in case no explanation is furnished, the Authority shall proceed ex parte against him. In spite of sufficient opportunity given, no reply was filed. The Authority considered the case and with the approval of His Excellency The Governor, imposed the punishment of withholding 20% pension. Hence this petition.

Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a large number of issues, but fairly submitted that petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself and enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law.

It is settled legal proposition that judicial review in such a matter is permissible against the decision making process and not against the decision itself.

In the instant case, five serious charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was in respect of recording the name in the Revenue Record wrongly of one Gopi Ram in place of Shri Chhote Lal on the basis of Will, causing serious financial loss to the Gram Sabha, was found proved. Second charge was of granting certain rights in favour of certain persons in view of the allotment letters, though the same were not produced and the said allotment letters were not part of the record. The rights have been confirmed without hearing the aggrieved party Gram Sabha, which suffered a financial loss. Third charge was that he had dismissed a large number of cases without examining the record and giving an opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence. The fourth and fifth charge related to passing the ante-dated orders during his suspension, causing serious financial loss to the Gram Sabha.

As all the said five charges have been serious and reflected much on the integrity of the petitioner and stood proved fully, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. More so, the punishment so imposed cannot be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct, rather, it appears that respondents have taken a lenient view.

We find no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

28.7.2003

AKSI


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.