Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shamsher Singh v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 64662 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4214 (7 October 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).



Petitioner, who is employed as Junior Engineer in Rural Engineering Service Department, U.P., is aggrieved by an order dated 9th August, 2005 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Kanpur. By means of the said order it has been stated that in pursuance of the order of the State Government dated 1.8.2005 a sum of Rs. 25,833.33 (which represents the alleged loss caused to the State Government by action and inaction of the petitioner) be recovered from his salary.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed today and the order of the State Government dated 1st August, 2005 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the recovery of the loss caused to the State Government is a major penalty referable to Rule 3(4) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and therefore it is but necessary that the procedure prescribed for imposition of major penalty under rule 7 must be adopted before any order of punishment, for recovery of the loss caused, is passed against the employee concerned.

Faced with the aforesaid contention, Standing Counsel submits that it would be in the interest of justice that the authorities may be permitted to hold proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order thereafter.

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

From the records of the writ petition  it is apparently clear that only a notice was issued to petitioner in respect of alleged loss, to which reply was submitted. The officers referred the matter for direction to the State Government. The State Government without getting any disciplinary enquiry conducted in accordance with rules, proceeded to pass the order dated 1.8.2005, only after taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the petitioner. From the records it further established that the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 has not been adopted for the purposes of imposition of major penalty of the recovery of the loss caused. The order dated 9th August, 2005 passed by the Superintending Engineer as well as order of the State Government dated 1st August, 2005 cannot be sustained to that extent.

Accordingly, the order dated 1.8.2005 of the State Government as well as the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 9.8.2005 are hereby quashed to the extent they direct recovery of the alleged loss of Rs. 25,833.33 from the salary of the petitioner. It shall be open to the respondent authorities to initiate proceeding in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

With the above observations, writ petition stands allowed.  




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


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 |

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