Brij Lal vs State Of U.P. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1443 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 16
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18783 of 2007
 
Petitioner :- Brij Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- N.L. Agarwal,J.P. Singh,Saurabh Roy,Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.R. Sirohi
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh who is now appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2006 and the order dated 08.07.2004 passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively terminating the services of the petitioner and uphold the same in appellate jurisdiction.

The facts in brief are that records of Criminal Case No.207 of 1989, under Sections 7/16 P.F. Act was summoned by the Deputy Registrar, High Court vide letter dated 24.03.2003 as required in Criminal Revision No. 2618 of 1984, written to the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. However, the same was not traceable and an inquiry was made in the matter, the inquiry report was submitted by  Sri B.K. Srivastava, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide report dated 19.01.2004, wherein prima facie he found that after decision of the aforesaid case in Appeal No. 180-M of 1982  decided on 07.12.1984, the file was missing and never restored to record room. It was not clear that after decision whether the record was sent back or not and therefore prima facie he found that the petitioner Sri Brij Lal and one Sri Laxmi Kumar were guilty of such misconduct. Subsequently, chargesheet dated 07.02.2004 was given to the petitioner wherein he was charged with the misconduct that after decision of the aforesaid criminal case in appeal on 07.12.1984, the record were sent to his office but he did not sent the record to the  record room and the record of the case requestioned by the High Court was found missing. It was also provided that in case he wants personal hearing, he can inform the inquiry officer about the same. He was also given liberty to give the names of the witnesses if he wants to examine and thus, he was provided full opportunity of hearing while giving the chargesheet.

Subsequently, an amended chargesheet was given to the petitioner, which is Annexure 5 to the petition, wherein it was recorded that the correct number of the file was 107 of 1981 which was decided in appeal on 05.07.1982 and was sent to the office of the petitioner on 07.12.1984 and thus the number of the criminal case was corrected from "207/ 1989" to "107/1981". The details of the evidence which was proposed to be used against the petitioner was also given the aforesaid chargesheet. He was also provided opportunity of personal hearing if he so desires and that he can also provide list of witnesses, if any, to be examined by him.

Annexure-6 to the petition is the statement of one Sri Shamshul Zaman, grade II clerk, wherein, when confronted with the initials on the register as to whether same are of Babulal or petitioner Brij Lal, in his reply, he had categorically stated that signatures of Babulal were entirely different and the signatures on the record are of the petitioner. Inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 17.02.2004, he recorded categorical finding that the signatures were of the petitioner Brij Lal and the charges against the petitioner is found fully proved. Inquiry report was disputed by the petitioner and it was stated that the number of the criminal case has been changed, which does not prove any charge against the petitioner and that he is liable to be exonerated as charge has not been proved. By means of the order dated 08.07.2004, the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar clearly recorded that in reply to the show cause notice to the petitioner, no new statement came in light and the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory. Finally, the petitioner, Brij Lal was dismissed from service.

An appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dated 08.07.2004 which came to be decided vide order dated 11.10.2006 by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which is Annexure-10 to the petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is against the evidence on record and the number of criminal case from "207 of 1989" was wrongly changed to "107 of 1981". Record of the appeal No. 180-M of 1994 was weeded out and the proceedings have taken place on the basis of the record of criminal case no. 107 of 1981. He submitted that as per the inquiry report, it is not clear that the petitioner had received the record and he has misplaced the same for undue advantage. Quantum of punishment was also challenged by submitting that it is too harsh. The perusal of the appellate order clearly disclosed that the number of the file of criminal case was changed from "207 of 1989" to "107 of 1981" and amended chargesheet with regard to the same was given to the petitioner as during inquiry, it was found that the correct case number was 108-M of 1981. Be that as it may, the question whether case no. "207 of 1989" or "107 of 1989" has no relevance the criminal case itself decided in the year 1982 and subsequently the appeal was also decided on 07.12.1984.

It is also clear from the appellate order that the petitioner was given time on several occasions to file his reply in pursuance to the chargesheet and it was clear that no more time was granted to him, if he wants to file the reply and even after the chargesheet having been amended he was granted full opportunity. He did not reply although he was granted time. It has been clearly mentioned in the appellate order that the petitioner Brij Lal remained posted in the office of Metropolitan Magistrate w.e.f. 11.08.1982 to 31.1.1985; record of criminal case no. 107 of 1981 were connected with another appeal No.180/M/1982 which was decided on 07.12.1984 by the court of 10th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and as as per receipt filed by Sri Shamshul Zaman, Clerk of the said court, the lower court records i.e.Criminal Case No. 107/1982 were sent to Sri Brij Lal, Clerk on 14.08.1985. This date 14.08.1985 clearly falls within the period during which the petitioner was posted as clerk in the office of the Metropolitan Magistrate. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not file any reply to the amended chargesheet although he was given sufficient time and he did not produce any evidence in his defence. Further during his statement Shamshul Zaman has denied the said signature was of Babulal. The inquiry officer also verified the signature of the petitioner and found that the signature appended on the receipt sheet were of the petitioner Brij Lal, on comparing with the undisputed signature on the margin of the order dated 17.04.2004 whereby received the copy of the amended chargesheet. Therefore, not only disciplinary authority but also by the appellate authority, the signatures of the petitioner were proved beyond doubt and it was found that the petitioner was responsible for custody of the file and his services were rightly terminated and appeal was also dismissed for devoid of merit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage had drawn attention to this Court on paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit to demonstrate that the petitioner was posted in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate from 16.08.1982 and was not posted in the said office on 15.07.1982. when criminal Case No 107 of 1981 was decided and on the contrary Sri Laxmi Kant Shukla was posted on the aforesaid date of decision i.e. 5.7.1982. The contains of paragraph 7 of the rejoinder affidavit are absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as, such non-posting of the petitioner on the aforesaid date in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate is of no consequence as inquiry was conducted regarding return of record after decision of the Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1981 on 07.12.1984, which was sent to the petitioner on 14.08.1985, which clearly falls within the period on 01.11.1982 to 31.08.1985 as mentioned in the order of the appellate authority itself.

The scope of judicial review in the matter of termination is very limited, the court cannot go into the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authorities concerned, as the court can not sit as appellate court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner failed to make out any case with regard to any defect in the inquiry report, inasmuch as, undisputedly he was granted opportunity of hearing at every stage of the inquiry proceeding till the conclusion of the same by means of the order of the appellate authority. He was provided with the entire evidence on record, he was given opportunity to file his reply, he was given show cause notice; he was granted opportunity to examine and to cross examine any witnesses; and indisputedly the petitioner had cross examined the witnesses Shamshul Zaman. Indisputedly he did not file any reply to the amended chargesheet.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of merit.

For the reasons and observations made hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.5.2014/Ajay