Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 63893 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3714 (29 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

A.F.R.

Court No. 53

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  63893 of 2005

------------

Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

Heard Sri Raj Mohan Saggi, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 7.

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself without calling for counter affidavit.

The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Yadav, who is working as Senior Clerk/Cashier, in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh is aggrieved  by order dated 28th December, 2004 as well as the consequential directions issued in pursuance thereof by the Executive Engineer, Flood Works, Division, Allahabad dated 5th September, 2005  wherein it has been directed that a sum of Rs. 2600/- per month be deducted from the salary of the petitioner towards loss caused to the State Government because of action or inaction on the part of the petitioner in discharge of official duty.

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that aforesaid orders have been passed without holding any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that unless and until the petitioner is found guilty for the loss caused  to the State Government,  the impugned orders fixing liability for making good the loss alleged caused to the State Government, can not be legally sustained.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that from the enquiry , which was conducted by the authorities, it is established that petitioner is responsible for the loss of Rs. 1,31,888/- and therefore, a direction was issued to recovery the same in 51 installments under the order of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Works Division, Allahabad. Therefore, no interference may be made at the behest of the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

From the records of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that procedures prescribed for imposing of major penalty upon a government servant as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999), have not been adopted by the State Government till date. The orders dated 28th December, 2004 and dated 5th September, 2005  do not make mention of any disciplinary proceedings  having been initiated and the petitioner having been found guilty of any misconduct. In the opinion of the Court the orders for recovery of the loss caused to the State Government can only be issued after a government servant is preceded with for imposing of major penalty in accordance with the procedures prescribed under Rule-7 of the Rules of 1999, inasmuch as Rule 3(iv) declares the recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government to be a major penalty. Rule 3(iv) of the Rules of 1999 reads as follows:

"3. Penalties.-----The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the Government Servants:---

........................

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach or orders;"

The respondents have yet not recorded any finding of misconduct against the petitioner after conducting disciplinary  enquiry as contemplated by Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. As such  recovery of the loss alleged to be caused by the petitioner does not arise. Accordingly the orders dated 28th December, 2004 and dated 5th September, 2005 are quashed.  

The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.

However, it is provided that having regard to the loss alleged to have been caused to the State Government, the disciplinary authority shall initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the disciplinary authority and after conducting a detailed disciplinary enquiry under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and shall take a decision as to whether the petitioner is responsible for the loss caused to the State Government within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. The impugned orders having been quashed by this Court referred to above, the respondent authorities shall take all consequential action with regard to the payment of salary due to the petitioner.

29.09.2005

Sushil/-


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.