Satish Kumar Sahu vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5631 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1383 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Satish Kumar Sahu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhoopendra Nath Singh,Devendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal questions the correctness of the findings as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th September 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in relation to the recovery of a sum of Rs.15,757/- from the appellant on account of delay in medical disbursement of certain amount to an employee that has been treated to be a loss of the department.

Sri B.N. Singh, has vehemently urged that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are erroneous both on fact as well as in law, inasmuch as, the assumption of any admission having been made by the appellant or the existence of any signatures on the receipt register is against the weight of evidence on record. The inference therefore, drawn by the learned Single Judge, that the delay had been caused by the appellant after having received the documents is an erroneous and invalid finding.

Secondly, on the ground of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice, Sri Singh contends that in spite of repeated requests, copies of the documents relevant in order to arrive at such a conclusion were not supplied to the appellant and in this view of the matter also the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the principles of natural justice have not been violated is incorrect. He therefore submits that the learned Single Judge without even calling for a counter affidavit from the respondents in order to controvert the averments contained in the writ petition could not have dismissed the writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the material on record did indicate that the appellant had virtually no explanation at all with regard to the delay caused in the disposal of the claim of the employee, in spite of the fact that he was the Accountant of the Pension Cell of the Directorate of Education at Allahabad. It is urged that the appellant had been given a detailed notice and he had full opportunity to give a reply, but the appellant in his reply avoided giving the answers that were expected in respect of the allegations made against him. To the contrary, the appellant kept on demanding documents which were not relevant for the controversy and consequently the realization and recovery is not contrary to law and the same cannot be impeached on any valid legal ground.

We have considered the submissions raised. It appears that the employee who had sought medical reimbursement with regard to the treatment of his daughter in Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Hospital, Lucknow filed Writ Petition No. 53912 of 2004, contending that in spite of the submission of the entire documents that were required in law, the Directorate of Education unjustifiably delayed the medical reimbursement on the pretext that the documents which had been sent had been lost. It was alleged that there were lapses and negligence on the part of department including its officials and consequently the writ petition prayed for grant of the relief of payment together with interest thereon.

It appears from the judgment dated 9th August 2012, in the writ petition filed by the employee that the officials of the Directorate had been called upon to appear in person including the then Joint Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad, Smt. Maya Niranjan and Sri Amar Nath Verma who appeared before the Court and informed the Court that the payments have been made. The payments were made on 10th August 2011 and therefore, the Court proceeded to examine the issue of delayed payment and has also awarded of interest thereafter. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for interest @ 9 per cent on the amount payable with effect from 01.04.2003 till the date of payment and cost of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed. The learned Single Judge left it open to the State Government to recover the amount of interest and cost from the concerned officers who were responsible for such delayed payment.

After the said judgment was delivered, it appears that the departmental machinery was said into motion to fix the responsibility and liability of payment of cost as well as interest on the employee as per the directions of the learned Single Judge. It is in compliance of the judgment dated 9th August 2012, that notices were issued to officials including the appellant who admittedly is the Accountant in the office of the Directorate of Education Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. On receipt of the notice dated 24th August 2012, the appellant proceeded to tender his explanation. This notice dated 24th August 2012 refers to the receipt register indicating receipt of documents. It is on the strength of such material that the appellant was put to notice to give an explanation in respect thereof. The appellant on 6th September 2012, dispatched his reply stating therein that no evidence has been supplied to him and therefore, it was not possible to ascertain and give a reply and it was further stated in paragraph no. 4 that a mere endorsement in the receipt register cannot be treated to be sufficient to establish the allegations on the appellant. The appellant also requested that he was not aware of the proceedings pending before the High Court and therefore, in the absence of any such information to him it was not possible to respond to the said notice and even otherwise since the earlier transactions have not been made by him, he should not be unnecessarily entangled in the issue.

This was followed by another letter dated 24th August 2012, dispatched by the Joint Director of Education to which the appellant gave a reply on 6th October 2012. By this reply the appellant demanded further evidence with regard to distribution of work amongst the employees and the assistants who were responsible for handling any such matter relating to pensions. In the absence of any such details the appellant again reiterated that unless it is established that it was the duty of the appellant to deal with such matters for which documents were required, it will not be possible to give a full and detailed explanation and therefore all the documents indicated in the said letter should be supplied to him. It was also indicated in the said reply that since the matter was about 12 years old therefore, appropriate opportunity should be afforded to the appellant together with documents to submit his defence.

The Joint Director Education vide letter dated 18th October 2012, called upon the appellant to furnish his explanation in respect of the documents referred to in the said letter that were supplied along with the receipt. The aforesaid document is crucial, inasmuch as, it categorically refers to 8 matters pertaining to the work of the appellant and dispatch in respect thereof. This was supported by the photostat copy of the dispatch receipt indicating that receipt no. 7620 related to the documents of the employee who had filed the writ petition, and it was also asserted in the said notice that the appellant may give an explanation that out of the 8 matters related to his work, why the matter relating to one employee had been left out to be resolved and was detained. The notice also called upon the appellant to give an explanation as to why proportionate realization and recovery be not made for him. The letter also encloses therewith the documents referred to in the said letter.

The appellant thereafter dispatched two letters again reiterating his earlier stand and asserting that since all the documents have not been given to him and the receipt register does not contain his signatures and date, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is responsible for the delay but in the event the said documents are supplied, the appellant will give his further reply in this regard. The appellant was further put to notice along with notices to an earlier retired Joint Director Education Dr. Prem Lata Singh and the then Joint Director Education Smt. Maya Niranjan. This was followed by reminders to which the appellant on 15th April 2013 reiterated his earlier stand that he had indicated in his letters dated 6.10.2012 and 31.10.2012.

The order of recovery dated 19th August 2013 was passed against the appellant that gave rise to the writ petition filed by the appellant, the judgment whereof is under appeal.

The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the appellant had admitted the receipt of the documents and it contains his signatures. This finding was recorded on the strength on paragraph no. 4 of the reply of the appellant dated 6.9.2012. We have perused the same and to the aforesaid extent we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that his signatures are not contained on the said documents.

However, while noticing the said fact we also find that the notice issued to the appellant on 18th October, 2012 narrated in detail all the 8 matters that were pending out of which only one matter had been delayed for which the responsibility was sought to be fixed on the appellant. We find that in none of the replies given by the appellant has he chosen to deny that the other matters had not been dealt with by him. The receipt register mentions all 8 matters and therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that all the 8 matters had been received by the appellant, out of which 7 were disposed of and only one matter remained pending. The appellant did not come up with any explanation denying having dealt with the other 7 matters. This therefore, obviously leads to the conclusion that the appellant had received the documents in respect of all the 8 matters and one matter was delayed the documents whereof are alleged to have been lost. The responsibility therefore was of the appellant that was clearly alleged and was supported by relevant documents to which the appellant failed to respond by making an excuse that the said receipt register did not contain his signatures and date. To our mind, if the appellant had received all the other 7 matters as indicated against the same receipt and which has not been denied by him, then there is no reason to believe that the appellant had not received all the 8 matters about which there is no explanation in any of the replies submitted by the appellant. The mere asking of the documents bearing his signatures was just an excuse and totally futile attempt on the part of the appellant to somehow the other avoid giving a direct reply to the allegations made in the notice dated 18th October 2012. The finding of the learned Single Judge, therefore, may have proceeded on an incorrect admission of signature but the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge based on the documents, in our opinion, does not suffer from any illegality.

So far as the issue relating to violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, we find that the appellant had been confronted with a clear case of having delayed the disposal of the claim of the employee in spite of the fact that he had disposed of the other 7 claims which have been received by him. Consequently the authorities were justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was equally responsible for the said delay. In our considered opinion, there is no violation of principles of natural justice, as adequate opportunity and the relevant documents had been supplied to the appellant that was necessary for him to give an appropriate reply. The appellant as noted above failed to deny the receipt of the said documents. Any further demand of documents by the appellant was therefore again an exercise in order to avoid the relevant reply to the allegations made.

We therefore do not find any error in the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 24.10.2017

Ishan