Allahabad High Court
G.N. Shukla vs S.D.O. on 5 July, 2012
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14097 of 1993
Petitioner :- G.N. Shukla
Respondent :- S.D.O.
Petitioner Counsel :- S. Prakash,D. Tiwari,Upasana Dubey,V.Singh
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,M.C. Jain
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner before this Court was working as the Lekhpal in the revenue department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner was transferred vide order dated 6th January, 1993 from area Nagla Padi to area Angoothi, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra. He was directed to handover the charge including the official records in his possession to Sri Prakash Chandra Jain. Despite relieving officer having visited the residence of the petitioner for taking over the government records, the same were not handed over. All attempts for the purpose failed. Petitioner was, therefore, placed under suspension vide order dated 30th January, 1993 and an departmental enquiry was initiated.
For non-deposit of the official records, a first information report was also lodged. Petitioner admittedly filed a writ petition before this Court being writ petition no. 8593 of 1993, challenging the order of suspension as well as the order of transfer, wherein no interim order was granted. As per paragraph-24 of the present writ petition, the writ petition remains pending.
Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo, thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report and it was recorded that despite order of transfer having been issued and despite there being a direction to the petitioner to hand over the charge including the official records to Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain, he has neither jointed at the transferred place nor he has handed over the official records.
On the basis of the enquiry report so received, the Competent Authority after considering the material on record, found that the petitioner has deliberately not handed over the official records. It was held that there was deliberate disobedience of the lawful orders of the higher authority and negligence in performance of duties by the petitioner. Petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service under order dated 12th April, 1993.
It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
Two grounds have been pressed for challenging the order of punishment, (a) petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge and (b) enquiry report was never made available to the petitioner and therefore, the order of punishment is bad. For the second proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.ect. vs. B. Karunakar, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074.
So far as the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, suffice to record that the Apex Court, in the case of South Bengal State Transport Corporation vs. Swapan Kumar Mitra & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 644, has explained that acquittal in the criminal case will not absolve the petitioner of the charges, which were under consideration in departmental enquiry. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court as aforesaid the first ground raised on behalf of the petitioner must fail.
So far as the second ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL (Supra) has been explained in subsequent judgments of the Apex Court and it has been laid down that mere plea of violation of principles of natural justice will not suffice, prejudice caused must also be shown.
In Syndicate Bank & Ors. Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati; (2006) 3 SCC 150, the Apex Court held as under:-
"To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice."
Similarly, in Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja; (2008) 9 SCC 31, the Apex Court held that a party must satisfy the Court as what prejudice has been caused to it by non observance of those principles.
In the facts of the case, there is absolutely no averment in the present writ petition qua the petitioner having handed over the official records or that the finding recorded in that regard being bad. No prejudice has been pleaded nor shown due to non-supply of the enquiry report.
This Court made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out from any pleading on record or from the document, as to when the petitioner handed over the official records, which were in his custody while working as Lekhpal before issuance of the order of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner hopelessly failed to refer to any pleading or any evidence on record for disputing the finding qua the official records have not been handed over by the petitioner.
In these set of circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to record that the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is only a technical plea, which has no substance. Petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish any prejudice which may have been caused to him because of non-supply of the enquiry report.
For the said reasons, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of punishment.
The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 5.7.2012
Sushil/-
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14097 of 1993
Petitioner :- G.N. Shukla
Respondent :- S.D.O.
Petitioner Counsel :- S. Prakash,D. Tiwari,Upasana Dubey,V.Singh
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,M.C. Jain
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Dismissed.
For order see order of date passed on the separate sheets.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 5.7.2012
Sushil/-
