Devi Deen Singh vs State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4385 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 19.07.2013
 
Delivered on 22.07.2013
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37510 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Devi Deen Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Sengar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. The petitioner, Devi Deen Singh, as identified by his counsel Sri Sanjay Singh Sengar, Advocate, is present pursuant to this Court's order dated 15.07.2013. He has been examined by this Court and therefrom prima facie, I have come to the conclusion that he has signed blank papers and the writ petition has been prepared thereafter. He has admitted to have signed the blank papers, two of which have been made part of paper book, tagged as covering paper and at the bottom. The purpose thereof he could not explain.

2. This Court made an amendment in the Rules with an objective to avoid fictitious affidavits and to give a sanctity to the sworn documents by providing that photograph of deponent shall be affixed on the affidavit. It was expected that when photograph of deponent shall be affixed, the scrupulous persons may not dare to file forged affidavit and the same would actually be sworn by genuine persons but it appears that the people have found out ways to defeat it. When I wanted to proceed in the matter further by directing further inquiry, at that stage, Sri Kandarp Narain Mishra, President, Allahabad High Court, Bar Association, as also the Secretary and several other Advocates interfered and requested to take a lenient view. They told that requirement of mere affixation of photograph on affidavit is not enough to curb the menace of affidavit of strangers. The procedure requires something more. They placed a photocopy of letter dated 14.05.2013 submitted to Registrar General of this Court, wherein it has been proposed that for the purpose of affixing photograph, arrangement of photographing the deponent should be available in the High Court itself, as that would ensure presence of deponent at Allahabad, if the affidavit is to be sworn hereat. It has been proposed that the High Court may permit only such a photograph which has been taken through a digital camera/web-cam attached to a computer installed in the High Court campus itself, either in the Registry or, if permitted, at the Bar Association. Such photograph shall depict the date and code number of Oath Commissioner also. Such a process may ensure swearing of an affidavit by deponent after its preparation at Allahabad and not that the blank papers are signed by one at any point of time, the photograph is handed over to his counsel and thereupon the affidavit is prepared subsequently.

3. Since there is no provision in the High Court Rules which may allow the Registry to entertain and recognise only such photographs and none else, unless appropriate step is taken by the Court, the above procedure cannot be given effect to. It is suggested on behalf of the Bar Association that such a procedure will protect not only the genuine litigants but also the Advocates, inasmuch as, if an effective procedure is not evolved, in the extraordinary professional competition, it would be difficult for some of the Advocates to adhere to insist upon their clients to come for the purpose of signing affidavits while other provides delivery at door facility where the presence of deponent to sign affidavit after its preparation can be otherwise managed which ultimately results in frustrating the purpose. Procedure of preparing affidavit has been laid down in the Rules with a pious objective to have everything genuine but is not being achieved due to loop holes and bottlenecks.

4. The suggestion appears to be quite reasonable and attractive but I find that it involves an important policy decision, therefore, must be considered on Administrative side by this Court after discussing its all pros and cons. I, therefore, direct the Registrar General to place the aforesaid matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice so as to be examined by this Court on Administrative side at an early date.

5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, I do not propose to fail the petitioner only for the reason of doubtful manner of swearing of affidavit and hence proceed to consider the same on its merit.

6. The petitioner served police department having been appointed in 1982. He was allowed first time bound higher scale after completion of 10 years of service in 1992 but another similar benefit available after 16 years of service was delayed by an year due to a censure administered to petitioner in 1996, as a result whereof aforesaid benefit due in 1998 could actually be granted to him in March, 2000. Subsequently, in view of Government Order dated 03.09.2001, he could have been granted advantage of an additional increment on completion of 19 years of satisfactory service which should have been allowed in 2003 but the respondents failed to consider the same and in April, 2004 the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. For the aforesaid benefit, he made several representations to the authorities concerned, pursuant whereof Superintendent of Police, Mahoba sent letter dated 21.01.2006 to the Finance Controller, Police Headquarters, Allahabad requesting to furnish service book of petitioner so that his entitlement of one increment after 19 years of satisfactory service may be considered. Pursuant thereto, the Finance Controller informed the Superintendent of Police, Mahoba vide letter dated 27.04.2012 that service book of petitioner has been made available to District Headquarters, vide letter dated 05.10.2006 and hence petitioner's matter for increment after 19 years of satisfactory service may be considered and finalised at the earliest. Thereafter a letter proposing grant of such increment has been sent by Superintendent of Police, Mahoba to D.I.G. Chitrakoot Dham but ultimately nothing has been done in this regard, so far.

7. Apparently such an extraordinary delay and inaction on a small matter like this, on the part of respondents is deprecable, condemnable and difficult to understand. The respondents must realise that petty matters of employees should not be kept unattended or pending for a long time, as such inaction breeds a sense of anger and dissatisfaction amongst them, which ultimately cause negative to the efficiency of subordinates. It is the duty of superior officers to look into all genuine claims and entitlement of subordinates without any delay. They should be attended expeditiously and within a reasonable time. Any failure in this regard must be taken as a serious misconduct on the part of defaulting superior officer. It is apparent dereliction of duty, a misconduct under Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. It is the responsibility of State Government to ensure that superior officers do not delay matters of claims/entitlement, like considerations of promotion and other benefits of subordinate officials. The same are considered and disposed of very expeditiously, and, any case, within two or three months from the date since when such employee becomes entitled for consideration etc., failing which, the superior officers must be held accountable and responsible for delaying the matter for reasons other than bona fide justifying appropriate action, disciplinary or otherwise, so as to ensure and compel them to do the needful within a reasonable time. The superior officers must be made more sensitive and considerate towards the genuine claims of subordinates and, in no case, the same should be allowed to remain pending for any length of time. The system requires accountability and responsibility on the part of non-performers.

8. Here a small matter of consideration of the question of an increment by adding three years of service as per the relevant Government order could not have been finalized almost for the last a decade. If this would not be termed as sheer harassment of a retired employee, what else it could be? I have no hesitation in holding that responsible superior officers have miserably failed to discharge their duties and are guilty of a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

9. In the matter of some of the public functions, a citizen charter has been enforced wherein the concerned departments/ officials are supposed to do the needful within a prescribed period. A similar kind of time schedule, in my view, is now the demand of time, in respect of rights and entitlement of Government employees also. Time and again, this Court is flooded with cases complaining about non-payment of retiral benefits within time, extraordinary delay in clearing payment of salary, arrears, increments, medical reimbursement bills etc. Most of the time the Court finds a complete absence of any justification for such delay which exposes apathy and insensitivity on the part of concerned officials. It also proves that there exist some reasons other than bona fide. It appears that officials, responsible in the movement of files or taking decision, wait for employees approach and to part away something before clearing their cases, which are otherwise genuine and valid. Many of times the employees are harassed on the pretext of frivolous and baseless objections over which the employee or claimant himself has no role or responsibility. This attitude on the part of departmental authorities and, in particular, the superior authorities is one of the fundamental reason breeding corruption, intra departmentally. A time has come when Government must look into the reason and background facts for discouraging such attitude, practice and dereliction of duty on the part of responsible officers causing harassment and torture to their own subordinate colleagues, resulting in wide spread corruption amongst the particular lot in the department concerned.

10. Deprecating the kind of conduct and attitude which shows inaction and non-performance on the part of Government causing harassment to an individual, this Court in Smt. Raj Prabha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 540, in paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 said:

"25. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.

26. The respondents being the State Government, i.e., "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. As observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.

27. Regarding harassment of a Government employee, referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks Vs. Barnard and others 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta JT 1993 (6) SC 307 held as under;

"An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous." (para 10)

28. The above observation as such has been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities Vs. Balbir Singh JT 2004 (5) SC 17.

29. In the case of Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex court said as under:

"No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you can not hold me personally liable" No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary".

30. In the case of Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has held as follows:

"An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit."

31. In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another AIR 1996 SC 715 has held as follows:

"A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless."

11. In the present case the department is corresponding among themselves for the last more than seven years and still has not been able to take a final decision on a simple issue, i.e., grant of increment while giving benefit of three years of service to petitioner as per the relevant Government order.

12. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed with the direction to respondent-Competent Authority to take a final decision in the matter within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and, if due, make payment to petitioner within a month thereafter.

13. A copy of this order shall be made available to Registrar General of this Court and Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow for information and necessary action in the light of observations made above.

Order Date :- 22.07.2013

AK