Allahabad High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 29 November, 2012
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. - 33999 of 2010
Jaswant Singh ......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. & others ......... State of U.P. and others
****************************
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The agricultural land of Harnam Singh was put to auction for recovery of certain dues against him. One Ompal Singh's bid was found to be the highest. He deposited 1/4th of the bid amount but did not deposit the remaining 3/4th amount within the prescribed period. He applied for extension of time and the Additional District Magistrate passed an order on 29th September, 1988 granting one week further time to deposit the remaining amount. Inspite of this specific direction, the auction purchaser did not deposit the amount within the stipulated period, i.e., till 6th October, 1988 but deposited the 3/4th amount on 10th November, 1988, i.e., after the expiry of the period. When the sale certificate was not issued, the auction purchaser filed a writ petition which was disposed of by a judgment dated 3rd August, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.22829 of 2003, Om Pal Singh Vs. Collector Aligarh and others, in which it was held that since the 3/4th amount was not deposited within the stipulated period which was against the Rules, no sale certificate could be issued.
The Court found that the deposit of 3/4th of the amount was accepted by the Collection Amin without any order of the Competent Officer and that such amount was accepted after the stipulated period without any authority of law.
In the light of these findings, the Court directed the District Magistrate, Aligarh to refund the entire amount deposited by Om Pal Singh along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be calculated from the date of deposit. This order has become final.
It transpires that the entire amount along with interest was refunded to the auction purchaser and thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in which various allegations was levelled against him. Subsequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The basic charge was, that the petitioner, who was the Collection Amin at that relevant moment of time, had illegally accepted the balance amount after the stipulated period in collusion with the auction purchaser and therefore had caused loss to the State exchequer.
The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. Based on the inquiry report and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order of termination of the service of the petitioner and further directed that the interest paid to the auction purchaser should also be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire inquiry proceedings stood vitiated since it was in violation of the principles of natural justice as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided.
In this regard, the Court has perused the impugned order and the pleadings which have been filed before this Court. The Court finds that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed who investigated the charges. Consequently, the Court finds that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the principles of natural justice was followed by the respondents. The impugned order cannot be vitiated on the ground of violation of natural justice. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accordingly rejected.
The Court finds that the main charge that the petitioner had accepted the amount after the expiry of the extended period is not disputed. The only ground that was advanced before the Inquiry Officer was that one week has to be counted from the date when the file was received in the Tehsil and within that period the petitioner had accepted the amount.
This argument is totally farfetched and untenable. The order of the Additional District Magistrate was clear, namely, that the amount should be deposited within one week i.e. from the date of passing of the order and not from the date when the file was received in the Tehsil.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the charge levelled against the petitioner was rightly proved and this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
A punishment of dismissal in service and recovery of the loss incurred upon the State has been questioned before this Court. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the punishment commensurates with the misconduct or not.
In so far as the loss caused by the petitioner is concerned, the Court finds that the amount was received by the petitioner without any authority of law, which ultimately, a Court of law has found it to be illegal. The State was directed to refund the amount along with 10 % interest. The loss caused to the State exchequer, was to be recovered from the erring official. The petitioner was found guilty in the inquiry held against him. The Court is of the opinion that such loss has to be recovered from the erring official, namely, the petitioner.
Consequently, the direction in the impugned order for the recovery of the amount is valid and justifiable, which the Court does not find any infirmity. Having said this, the Court further finds that the matter is an old one relating to an incident of the year 1988. The service record of the petitioner has not been considered as to how he had performed his service from 1988 till the date of termination i.e. 28th May, 2010. Further, the Court finds that when recovery of the amount has been ordered and the allegation of collusion with the auction purchaser had not been proved to the hilt, the action of the respondents, in terminating the services of the petitioner, was wholly unjustified and did not commensurate with the misconduct. The Court is of the opinion that the recovery of the amount was sufficient for the misconduct committed by the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order in so far as the termination of the services of the petitioner is concerned is quashed. The recovery of the amount is affirmed. The petitioner would be reinstated in service with continuity of service but in the facts and circumstances of the given case, on the principle of no work no pay, the petitioner would not be entitled for any arrears of salary for the period from the date of termination till today. However, this period would be included in the length of service.
Order Date :- 29.11.2012
Bhaskar
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)
