Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA versus U.P. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL INDIRA BHAWAN & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal Indira Bhawan & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 21410 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 2761 (13 September 2005)

 

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.21410 of 2003

         Chandra Shekhar Sharma

Versus

       U.P.State Public Services Tribunal

      Indra Bhavan, Lucknow and others

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

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

( Delivered by Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.)

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.12.2002 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.9.1993 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by the Director of Agriculture and further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of Rs.40,267.92p as arrears  of land revenue.

On 16.5.2003, this Court was pleased to grant four weeks time to file a counter affidavit and the recovery of the amount was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 16.5.2003.  It appears that when the case was listed on 29.7.2005, the Division Bench of this Court on the ground of illness slip of Sri R.K.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was pleased to adjourn the case for 13.9.2005.  It was made clear in the said order that if the illness slip was sent on the said date the same will not be entertained and the alternative arrangement be made and if the alternative arrangements are not made, the matter will be decided on merits.  Now today, when the case is listed again illness slip has been being sent. In view of the order dated 29.7.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court has no option except to proceed with the case on merits.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 16.9.1965 by the Director of Agriculture Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Agriculture Inspector and joined the said post on 19.9.1965 and the petitioner was confirmed on 1.1.1972.  The petitioner was suspended on 7.5.1983 and an F.I.R. was also lodged against him in Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut under sections 420, 409 and 468 I.P.C and the petitioner was prosecuted but was ultimately acquitted.  On the date of suspension i.e. 7.5.1983, the petitioner was working as Incharge Krishi Beej Bhandar, Hargaon,   District Sitapur. Two chargesheets were issued to the petitioner.  The first charge-sheet was dated 29.9.1983 regarding the period when the petitioner was working in District Meerut.  The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.11.1983.  The second charge-sheet dated 24.11.1984 was issued and received by the petitioner on 1.1.1985 regarding the charges when he was working in District Sitapur.  The petitioner submitted his reply to the second charge-sheet on 15.1.1985. Separate enquiries on the basis of the two charge-sheets were held and the Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report. Various charges were imposed upon the petitioner and one of the charges was that the petitioner went on unauthorized leave after transfer order without making proper arrangements of the stocks and due to the aforesaid act, damage was caused to the stocks of about Rs.9,865.70p. The said charge was partly proved.  The other charge was that the petitioner has released certain amount less from the cell of seeds and thus caused loss to the department.  In the second charge-sheet the charge No.1 was that fertilizer amounting to Rs.25,937.37p was found less.  The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report and a show-cause notice was issued by the Director of Agriculture to the petitioner on 11.2.1993 on the basis of the two enquiry reports. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.3.1993 to the show-cause notice.  Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply of the show-cause notice passed an order removing the petitioner from service on 18.9.1993 and has also directed to recover an amount from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.40,267.92p and also the balance of the salary not to be paid during the suspension period except the suspension allowance already paid.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed a Claim Petition before the State Public Service Tribunal, which was numbered as Claim Petition No.1206 of 1995.  The Tribunal without considering the relevant factors was also pleased to dismiss the said petition by its order dated 4.12.2002.  The same has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.

The contention of the petitioner is that only one show-cause notice regarding the two enquiries have been given and there were minor charges, therefore, the punishment, which has been awarded that does not commensurate to the gravity of the charge. The show cause notice does not mention that the punishing authority wanted to differ from the finding of the enquiry report as some of the charges were not proved and some of the charges were partly proved.  The charges against the petitioner were not so serious, which could led to major punishment. In such a way statement of the petitioner is that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence committed.

The further submission of the petitioner is that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, the order of removal from service is liable to be set aside only on this ground alone.

We have perused the record and have heard the learned Standing Counsel.    

From the record, it is clear that charge-sheet was received by the petitioner and he has submitted a reply and during the enquiry proceedings the petitioner was given full opportunity and the disciplinary authority on the basis of the relevant record and after perusal of the enquiry report has issued a second show cause notice for imposing the punishment.  The contention of the petitioner to this effect that in the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reason is not correct. From the perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the enquiry report has been perused and on that basis after due consideration why the major punishment be not imposed as clearly been mentioned and it has also clearly been stated why the recovery of the amount mentioned above and punishment of removal be not passed against the petitioner.  The disciplinary authority after going through the evidence on record was pleased to pass an order removing the petitioner from service.  The U.P. State Tribunal has also considered the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that as the petitioner was given benefit of doubt in the criminal case, therefore, there will be no effect upon the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.  The finding to that effect has been recorded by the Tribunal that acquittal in the criminal case will not give any benefit to the petitioner as it is well settled that both the proceedings criminal as well as the departmental proceedings are separate and that will not give any effect if a person has been acquitted in the criminal case.  As proceedings against the petitioner has been initiated after giving a charge-sheet and after following the proper procedure as provided under the law and it is not a case of the petitioner that there is any defect in the disciplinary proceedings which led to the removal from service of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid fact, as the order passed by the respondents is based on the evidence on record and the petitioner has been found guilty, therefore, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

13.9.2005

SKD      


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.