High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nand Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 47275 of 2002  RD-AH 19200 (14 November 2006)
Court No. 36
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47275 of 2002
Nand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and another
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
The impugned punishment order dated 15.10.2001 directs deduction of 1/5th of pension of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct detailed below.
Apparently, there was an order restraining purchase of maxfalt from the local contractors to prevent the mischief of fictitious transactions or siphoning back of purchased material to the local contractors for resale, and not utilizing the purchased material in the construction of the road.
The finding of pure fact, recorded is that the petitioner in utter disregard and violation of this instruction, purchased the said item from the local contractors.
When we required the learned counsel for the petitioner to make submissions on this aspect of the matter, he has argued that the items purchased have actually been used in the construction of the road.
It is unfortunate that the learned counsel does not appreciate that this kind of factual averment about material having been used cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction by this Court. When a clear departmental instruction issued for prevention of mischief in local purchase have been violated, the reason for violation is quite obvious and a very heavy burden lay on the petitioner to justify the said violation.
In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere in the findings of pure fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.
In the circumstances, we proceed on the assumption that the petitioner has committed misconduct and upon such misconduct withholding of 1/5th of the pension is not excessively disproportionate punishment. However, the petitioner has retired from service and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has not been paid post retirement dues.
In view of this submission, it is directed that post retirement dues of the petitioner after deducting the permissible deduction in view of the impugned order dated 15.10.2001, or under any other order which may exist independently of this order dated 15.10.2001, will be computed and paid to the petitioner within three
months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent no. 2.
However, it is made clear that this order will be complied with only to the extent to which it is within the power of the two respondents mentioned in this writ petition. If any other authority is involved through which this post retirement dues is to be computed or paid, the two respondents mentioned in this writ petition will not be responsible for the same, however it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with the proper respondents, so that directions can be issued to them also.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.