Allahabad High Court
Dujai Ram vs State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy ... on 29 April, 2016
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
Reserved
Court No.24
Writ Petition No.320 of 2005 (S/S)
Dujai Ram ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...... Opposite parties
******
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter alia praying for quashing the impugned punishment order dated 01/10/2004 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] passed by Sri Amod Kumar, District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to initial pay of the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and was also awarded censure entry.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Assistant Registrar Kanongo, Tehsil Sidhauli, District Sitapur was served with a charge-sheet containing charges of irregularity in mutation proceedings in case no. 222/512 under Section 34 L.R. Act [Smt. Rachana Singh and others vs. Smt. Shanti Devi of village Nanpara, Pargana Badhi,Tehsil Sidhauli].
The Inquiry Officer after concluding the inquiry submitted his inquiry report on which the District Magistrate/Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 6.2.2004 annexing therewith a copy of the inquiry report and requiring his comment. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment had been passed.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice advancing therein reasons for acceptance of Inquiry Report and proposed punishment has been given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and as such, it vitiates the impugned order of punishment.
It has been stated by the petitioner that when the petitioner was punished, he was 58 years of age and only 2 years in his retirement, putting him at the basic pay of the pay-scale alongwith recording of a censure entry in his character roll at the fag end of the service has caused serious prejudice and monetary loss to him.
Lastly it has been submitted that that neither the Inquiry officer nor the disciplinary officer did apply their mind that there was no reason whatsoever to uphold the charges against him and acted mechanically in a pre-decided manner in colorable exercise of powers.
On the contrary, the Standing Counsel has submitted that while petitioner being posted as Assistant Registrar Kanoongo in Tehsil Sidhauli, he had committed serious irregularities of back-dating illegally in transfer account (Namantaran Bahi) for giving undue benefits to the khatedar for which departmental proceedings were initiated against him and charge-sheet was issued. The petitioner in connivance with the khatedar at the serial no.11 and 12 had done overwriting and made 12 and 13 at serial no. 10 dated 28.10.1998 after making mutation.
The Punishing Authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Sitapur, after considering the inquiry report, issued a show cause notice dated 6.2.2004 but the petitioner had not submitted his reply and demanded more time. Ultimately, when no reply was received despite lapse of considerable long time, the impugned punishment was awarded to the petitioner.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it comes out that from the report dated 25.9.2001 and 27.5.2003 of the Incharge Officer,Ceiling it is established that the petitioner had made interpolations in the revenue record with an oblique motive to give advantage to some one. This Court had earlier directed for production of Khatauni pertaining to Khata no.248 of Smt.Shanti Devi and relevant page of mutation register containing the mutation order, which have been brought on record. A careful scrutiny of the record shows that Khatauni pertaining to Khata no. 248 of Shanti Devi, there are some interpolations/over writing. The Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that these over-writing/interpolations were made by the petitioner. At serial no. 10 date 28.10.1998 after making mutation, serial no.11 had been added and the mutation of 28.09-1998 had been entered as serial no.12, the order dated 8.3.1999 was mentioned. Thus the mutation of serial no. 11 had been made by overwriting with an oblique motive on extraneous considerations.
It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner has alleged that no show cause notice was issued to him which is absolutely incorrect. As a matter of fact, the Disciplinary Authority, after receipt of inquiry report and after being satisfied that the charges stood proved on the basis of material on record and thereafter sent a show cause notice to the petitioner on 6.2.2004 annexing therewith copy of inquiry report but instead of submitting reply, the petitioner demanded time. In the impugned order, t has been mentioned that the same was received by the petitioner on 10.2.2004 as per report dated 25.6.2004 of the Tehsildar, Sidhauli. Ultimately, when no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of materials available on record passed the impugned order of punishment. If opportunity has been afforded but it has not been availed by the petitioner, then petitioner has to blame himself and it cannot be said that the punishment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, petitioner has failed to establish the prejudice which has been caused to him. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down in Rajendra Prasad Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and others; [2004(22)LCD 155] which has been relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail.
In view of the aforesaid, this court do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, which is hereby approved.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.
Date: 29 April, 2016
MH/-
