State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. ... vs Sugreev Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 3880 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 3
 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 7389 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko & Others.
 
Respondent :- Sugreev Ram
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Singh,J.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri V.P. Nag, Advocate for the petitioners-State at admission stage.

By means of the present writ petition the State has challenged the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (in short "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 1944 of 2018 (Sugreev Ram vs. State of U.P. & Ors.).

The Claim Petition No. 200 of 2018 was filed by the claimant-respondent with prayer(s) to the effect that the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority be quashed, whereby the punishment of "Censure" was awarded, with all consequential benefits and a direction be issued to grant ACP in grade pay of Rs. 76,00/-.

The punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 26.02.2018 is minor punishment i.e. "Censure" as provided under Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short "Rules of 1999").

Needless to mention hear that the Disciplinary Authority, against the claimant-respondent, initiated the enquiry as per Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, which relate to holding a disciplinary proceedings for imposing major punishment. It is no more res-integra and it is settled principle of law that where the procedure of major penalty is initiated and even if disciplinary authority awards a minor punishment, the enquiry should be completed by adopting the procedure prescribed for major penalty (vide: State Bank of India Versus T.J. Pal 1999 SCC (L&S) 922; Union of India Versus S.C. Parasar 2006 SCC (L&S) 496 And Kamla Cheran Hair Versus State of U.P., 2009 (27) L.C.D. 130).

Counsel for the petitioners-State assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law in substituting its own view after reassessing the evidence that too without considering all the aspects including the public interest. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has acted as an appellate authority. The order of punishment dated 26.02.2018 impugned before the Tribunal is a reasoned order and the contrary finding of the Tribunal on this issue as such is unsustainable. He further stated that in fact the claimant-respondent committed illegality in issuing 20 supply orders without following process of tender and inviting quotations and also made payment without approval of rate by the competent authority and Tribunal ignored this aspect of the case while passing the impugned order.

From the pleadings and documents on record, it is apparent that the Tribunal vide order 05.12.2019, under challenge, interfered in the order of punishment on the following main grounds:-

(i) That the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999 was not followed. The Tribunal after considering the enquiry report in para-7 and 8 of the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 has held that the enquiry officer failed to fix date, time and place for holding regular enquiry against the delinquent as required under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.

On this issue, as appears from the impugned order, the Tribunal considered the judgments passed in the case of Yog Narain Dubey Versus Managing Director and Others reported in 2011 (29) LCD 2024 and Radheykant Khare Versus U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. reported in 2003(21) LCD, page 610 and Roop Singh Negi Versus Punjab National Bank and Others (2009) reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Uttranchal and Others Versus Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 2 SCC ( L&S ) 698 and State of U.P. and Others Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Moti Ram Versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 2013 (31) LCD 1319 and Ayub Khan Noor Khan Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR, 2013 SCC 58. (2013) 4 SCC 465

On the aforesaid aspect it would be appropriate to say that it is settled by the catena of judgments that it is the duty of Enquiry Officer to hold ''Regular Enquiry". Regular enquiry means that after reply to the charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer must record oral evidence with an opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to adduce his evidence in defence. The opportunity of personal hearing should also be given/awarded to the delinquent employee. Even if the charged employee does not participate/co-operate in the enquiry, it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte by recording oral evidence. For regular enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, time and place for examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the purposes of proving of charges and documents, relied upon and opportunity to delinquent employee should also be given to produce his witness by fixing date, time and place. After completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer is required to submit its report, stating therein all the relevant facts, evidence and statement of findings on each charge and reasons thereof, and thereafter, prior to imposing any punishment, the copy of the report should be provided to charged officer for the purposes of submission of his reply on the same. The punishment order should be reasoned and speaking and must be passed after considering entire material on record.

(ii) That the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer failed to record reasons in the disagreement note. On this aspect, as appears from the impugned order, the Tribunal considered the judgments passed in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Versus Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC, 84 and Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3734 and East Coast Railway and Others Versus Mahadev Appa Rao and Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC (L& S) 483.

(iii) The disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment, failed to record reasons for coming to the conclusion. On this aspect, as appears from the impugned order, the Tribunal considered the judgments passed in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in 2006 SCC (L&S) 679 and Union of India Versus Mohan Lal Capoor and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836 and Kranti Association Private Ltd. Versus Masood Ahmad Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC Page 496 and G. Valli Kumar Versus Andhra Education Society and Others reported in 2010(2) SCC, 947.

Facts in brief of the case, as stated, are that in the year 2005 a departmental enquiry was initiated. On 02.01.2015 charge-sheet was issued against the claimant-respondent (Sugreev Ram). As per charge-sheet, the charge against the claimant-respondent is that without following due procedure of inviting tenders or quotations for competitive price, the claimant-respondent issued 20 supply orders for topographical survey to M/s Unique Design & Consultant Gomti Nagar Lucknow between October 2008 to March 2009 and made payment of Rs. 3,96,000.00/- between March 2009 to May 2009 without seeking approval of rates from competent level i.e. Superintending Engineer. It would be appropriate to mention that during relevant period, the claimant-respondent was posted on the post of Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, PWD, Hardoi.

In response to the charge-sheet, the claimant-respondent no. 1 filed the reply dated 23.01.2015 and supplementary reply to the charge-sheet was also submitted by the claimant-respondent on 26.08.2015. Thereafter, again claimant-respondent submitted a detailed reply dated 21.11.2016 to the charge-sheet annexing therewith State Technical Data, wherein he specifically stated that work regarding Paripara Road Lines was approved prior to the appointment of the petitioner, which is evident from document dated 04.12.2007 of the State Government. Regarding payment, in reply the claimant-respondent has stated post facto (dk;ksZRrj) that approval was given by the Superintending Engineer.

After submitting the aforesaid replies to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer concluded enquiry and submitted the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report has said that charge(s) against the claimant-respondent are partially proved.

It is apparent from the pleadings as also the documents on record that there is no charge against the claimant-respondent regarding embezzlement or causing financial loss to the Government. The charge on reproduction reads as under:- ^^vki }kjk fiifj;k xkbM cU/kk es fcuk v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk mUuko o`Rr yksd fuek.kZ foHkkx mUuko ls njsa Lohd`r djk;s QeZ ;wuhd fMtkbu ,.M dUlYVsUV xkserhuxj y[kuÅ ds uke ekg [email protected] ls ekg [email protected] ds e/; 20 vkiwfrZ vkns'k VksiksxzkfQdy losZ gsrq dqy :0 3]96][email protected]& ds tkjh fd;s x;sA bu fuxZr vkiwfrZ vkns'kksa ds lkis{k vki }kjk ekg [email protected] ls ekg [email protected] ds e/; dqy :0 3]96]000-00 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vki us l{ke vf/kdkjh dks nj vuqeksnu gsrq tks rqyukRed fooj.k ,oa dqVs'ku izLrqr fd;s gSa og fu;ekuqlkj dk;Z ls lEcfU/kr voj vfHk;[email protected];d vfHk;Urk }kjk gLrk{kfjr ugh gSa rFkk u gh vki }kjk dk;Z izkjEHk djus ls iwoZ dk;Z dk dksbZ dqVs'[email protected] vkeaf=r fd;k x;k gSA tcfd v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk mUuko o`Rr yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx mUuko }kjk bldh njsa muds i= la0 2633 ,[email protected] ,e&m0o`[email protected] fnukad 27-06-2009 }kjk fnukad 25-06-2009 dks vuqeksfnr dh xbZ gSaaA vr% dk;Z lEiknu ls iwoZ fcuk nj vuqeksnu ds ;wfud fMtkbu ,.M dUlYVsUV xkserhuxj y[kuÅ ds uke :0 3]96][email protected]& dk vfu;fer Hkqxrku djus ds fy;s vki nks"kh gSaA bl izdkj vki }kjk vkus drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu es vR;Ur mnklhurk cjrh xbZ] vkidk ;g d`R; jkT; deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;ekoyh 1956 ds fu;e&3 dk mYya?ku gS vr% mijksDr ds fy, vkidks vjksfir fd;k tkrk gSA^^

It appears from the enquiry report that for personal hearing a date i.e. 21.11.2016 was fixed but for the purposes of holding the enquiry as per the Rule 7 of Rules of 1999, enquiry officer failed to fix date, time and place, which is required for proving the charges even if enquiry officer proceed to hold the enquiry ex-parte.

After submission of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note dated 22.09.2017. The relevant portion of the same on reproduction reads as under:-

^^tkWp vf/kdkjh dk mi;qZDr fu"d"kZ xzkg~; ugh gS D;ksafd tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk ;g dgk tkuk lehphu ugh gS fd vkiwfrZ vkns'k fuxZr djus ls iwoZ v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ls njsa Lohd`r djk;k tkuk fdl fu;e ds vUrxZr visf{kr Fkk vFkkZr vipkjh }kjk bl lEcU/k es fdu fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] ;g vfu;ferrk vkjksi ds leFkZu es yxk;s x;s lk{;ksa ls izekf.kr ugh gksrh gSA yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ls njsa Lohd`r djkus dk l{ke Lrj v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk gS vkSj fdlh Hkh foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh fo'ks"k dj tcfd og vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ;k mlls Åij ds in ij dk;Zjr gks] ds fy;s bl loZ laKkfur O;oLFkk ls vufHkKrk izdV djuk mldh mnklhurk ;k ykijokgh izdV djrk gSA ;g rF; Hkh /;krO; gS fd vxj vkjksfir vf/kdkjh njksa dks Lohd`r djkus fo"k;d mDr O;oLFkk ls vufHkK gksrk rks njks ij v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk dh dk;kZsRrj Lohd`fr gh D;ksa izkIr djrkA laxr vfHkys[kksa esa ,slh fdlh ifjfLFkfr vFkok vkns'k dh Hkh miyC/krk ugha gS] ftlls fcuk l{ke Lrj ls njsa Lohd`r djk;sa] vkiwfrZ vkns'k fuxZr fd;s tkus dh vifjgk;Zrk izdV gksrh gksA foRrh; gLriqfLrdk [k.M&1 es njksa ds vuqekssnu ds fy;s v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx dks l{ke vf/kdkjh crk;k x;k gS vkSj vkjksih vf/kdkjh }kjk v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ls dk;ksZRrj Lohd`fr izkIr Hkh dh xbZ gSA tkWp vf/kdkjh dk mDr fu"d"kZ rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr ugh gS] vr% vkjksi dk mDr va'k izekf.kr gSA^^

blds vfrfjDr vkjksi ds 'ks"k Hkkx dks vFkkZr vkjksih Jh lqxzho jke }kjk vkiwfrZ vkns'k fuxZr djus ds fy;s dqVs'[email protected] dh izfdz;k iw.kZ u fd;k tkuk] tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk gh izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mi;qZDrkuqlkj vkjksi vkaf'kd ugh cfYd iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA^^

In response of the disagreement note dated 22.09.2017, claimant-respondent has submitted his reply on 23.01.2018.

After the aforesaid, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment dated 26.02.2018. The relevant portion of the same, are reads as under:-

^^Jh lqxzho jke rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M&1 yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx gjnksbZ ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi tkWp vf/kdkjh dh tkWp vk[;k 'kklu }kjk vkjksi ds lEcU/k es LFkkfir fHkUu er rFkk izkIr vH;kosnu ds ifj'khyu ls Li"V gS fd vkiwfrZ vkns'k fuxZr djus ls iwoZ v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ls njsa Lohd`r djk;k tkuk fdl fu;e ds vUrxZr visf{kr Fkk vFkkZr vipkjh }kjk bl lEcU/k es fdu fu;eksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] ;g vfu;ferrk vkjksi ds leFkZu es yxk;s x;s lk{;ksa ls izekf.kr ugh gksrh gSA yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx es njas Lohd`r djus dk l{ke Lrj v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk gS vkSj fdlh Hkh foHkkxh; vf/kdkjh fo'ks"k dj tcfd og vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ;k mlls Åij ds in ij dk;Zjr gks] ds fy;s bl loZ laKkfur O;oLFkk ls vufHkKrk izdV djuk ;k rks mldh iVqrk gks ldrh gS vFkok v{kE; mnklhurk ;k ykijokghA ;g fo'kys"k.k tkWp vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kksZa ds ifjis{; es fd;k tkuk fdl fu;e ds n`f"Vxr Fkk ;k fdu fu;eksa dks mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq ;fn ;g rF; Hkh /;ku es j[kk tk; fd vxj vkjksfir vf/kdkjh njksa dks Lohd`r djkus fo"k;d mDr O;oLFkk ls vufHkK gksrk rks njksa ij v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk dh dk;ksZRrj Lohd`fr gh D;ksa izkIr djrkA laxr vfHkys[kksa esa ,slh fdlh ifjfLFkfr vFkok vkns'k dh Hkh miyC/krk ugh gS] ftlls fcuk njksa ij vuqeksnu ds gh vifjgk;Zrk izdV gksrh gksA vr% tkWp vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr ugh gS vkSj vkjksi iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gSA

8- vr% Jh jkT;iky ,rn~}kjk Jh lqxzho jke rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M&1] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx gjnksbZ dks fuEuor~ 'kkfLr iznku djrs gq;s m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds fu;e&7 ds vUrxZr 'kklu ds dk;kZy; Kki la0&[email protected]&6&14&17 [email protected] fnukad 02-01-2015 }kjk lafLFkr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k iznku djrs gSa%&

^^Jh lqxzho jke rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M&1 yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx gjnksbZ }kjk dqVs'[email protected] dh izfdz;k iw.kZ u fd;s tkus gsrq mUgas ifjfufUnr fd;k tkrk gSA^^

Being aggrieved the claimant-respondent approached the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No. 1944 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 05.12.2019, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

It would be appropriate to mention here that the Tribunal being the Court of first instance has taken note of the contents of the enquiry report and the reply of the petitioners in paras 22 and 23 of the impugned order, which on reproduction read as under:-

^^22&;kph us vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ds i= fnukad 22&09&2017 ds lanHkZ esa viuk vH;[email protected]"Vhdj.k fnukad 23&01&2017 dks izLrqr fd;kA ;kph us vius 02 i`"Bh; vH;kosnu fnukad 23&01&2017 esa tkWp vk[;k ds fo:) vo/kkfjr /kkj.kk dks vLohdkj djrs gq, vius cpko esa fofHkUu fcUnqvksa dk mYys[k fd;kA ;kph us mfYyf[kr fd;k fd tuin gjnksbZ ds fodkl [k.M Hkj[kuh esa fLFkr xjkZ unh ij fLFkr iqy ds¼cs>k&usoknk&fiifj;k ekxZ½ {kfrxzLr igqap ekxZ ds iqu% fuekZ.k gsrq fjoj Vªsfuax odZl ds vUrxZr izfr:i v/;;u dk Model tudy) vkx.ku 'kklu ds i=kad&[email protected]&11&2017 fnukad 4&12&2007 }kjk jkT; ;kstuk lkekU; esa :0 9-61 yk[k dh Lohd`fr izkIr gqbZ FkhA rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk vius i=kad la[;k [email protected]&[email protected] fnukad 14&12&2007 }kjk : 9-61 yk[k dh /kujkf'k ds nks cSad MªkQ~V flapkbZ vuqla/kku laLFkku :M+dh dks Hksts x;s FksA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ty foKku [k.M&izFke flapkbZ vuqla/kku laLFkku :M+dh }kjk vius i=kad [email protected]&[email protected]&148 fnukad 20&03&2008 }kjk vo'ks"k :0 2-69 yk[k ,d okafNr vkadM+s ¼VksiksxzkfQdy losZ ,oe~ dUVwj eSi½ miyC/k djkus gsrq vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk fuekZ.k [k.M&1 dks fy[kk x;k ¼layXud vkx.ku dh ist la[;k 5] 6 ,oa 7½ :0 9-61 yk[k vo'ks"k ,oa okafNr vfHkys[k ¼VksiksxzkfQdy losZ ,oe~ dUVwj eSi½ ds losZ{k.k dk;Z gsrq iqujh{k.k vkxM+u :i;s 18-30 yk[k dk eq[; vfHk;Urk ¼e0{ks0½ yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx y[kuÅ dk i=kad 6106 lhtsM&[email protected] fnukad 14&5&2008 }kjk :i;s 18-30 yk[k dk fjoj Vªªsfuax odZ~l djk;s tkus gsrq izfr:i v/;;u ekMy LVMh dk iqujhf{kr vkx.ku eq[; vfHk;Urk eq0&1 dk izsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa :0 6-01 yk[k dk dsoy xjkZ fjoj ij fczt ds 5 fd0eh0 vifLVªe ,oa 2 fd0eh0 2 fLVªe ds VksiksxzkfQd losZ dzkl lsDlu ,oa ,y lsDlu dk izkfo/kku fd;k x;k FkkA bl vkx.ku ds vkbVe la0&5 esa rRdkyhu eq[; vfHk;Urk e0{ks0 yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx y[kuÅ ,oa v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk mUuko o`Rr yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx mUuko ds gLrk{kj gSA

23& ;kph us vius vH;kosnu esa vkxs mfYyf[kr fd;k gS fd bl iqujhf{kr vkx.ku ds nj ds vk/kkj ij iwoZ esa fnukad 24&12&2007 dks izkIr rhu dksVs'ku esa U;wure nj :0 450-00 izfr ,dM+ tks vkx.ku esa nh x;h nj :0 500-00 izfr ,dM+ nj ls :0 50-00 de Fkk] QeZ ;wfud fMtkbu ,.M dalyVsUV xkserh uxj y[kuÅ ds uke ekg [email protected] ls ekg [email protected] ds e/; dk;Z dh egRrk dks ns[krs gq, 20 vkiwfrZ vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s FksA eq[; vfHk;Urk yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx y[kuÅ }kjk iqufjf{kr vkx.ku tks 'kklu dks Hkstk x;k Fkk] ml ij rRdkyhu v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk mUuko o`Rr yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx mUuko }kjk vkx.k+u ij mUgha ds gLrk{kj gSA vkiwfrZ vkns'k v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds vkxf.kr nj ls :0 50-00 de nj ij fd;k x;k] tks ckn esa vuqeksnu Hkh izkIr dj fy;k x;kA v/kh{k.k }kjk njksa dk vuqeksnu fnukad 25&06&2009 dks iznku dj fn;k x;kA v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk }kjk nj vuqeksnu djrs le; bl ckr ij dksbZ vkifRr vFkok dksbZ foijhr fVIi.kh ugha dh x;h fd vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk us fcuk nj vuqeksnu djk;s vkiwfrZ vkns'k fuxZr fd;s x;sA vkiwfrZ vkns'k ij voj vfHk;Urk ,oa lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds gLrk{kj gSA fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk mYya?ku ugha gSA iqujhf{kr vkx.ku esa nh x;h nj ls de nj ij vkiwfrZ vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks blfy, de nj ij rqyukRed fooj.k fnukad 30&03&2009 dks v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk mUuko o`Rr yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx mUuko dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk vuqeksnu 27&06&2009 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA vkiwfrZ vkns'k esa voj vfHk;Urk ,oa lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds gLrk{kj fd, x, Fks blfy, rqyukRed fooj.k ij buds gLrk{kj dh vko';drk ugha FkhA fnukad 27&02&2009 dks vfrfjDr igqap ekxZ ,oa xkbZM cU/kk ds vkx.ku 'kklu }kjk Lohd`r gksus ds i'pkr iqufjf{kr vkx.ku ds VksiksxzkfQdy losZ dh ykxr :0 6-01 yk[k ds lkis{k :0 3-96 yk[k dk Hkqxrku ekg [email protected] ls ekg [email protected] ds e/; fd;k x;kA^^

After considering the enquiry report as also the reply of the petitioners, the Tribunal in para 30 of the impugned order has observed that the post facto (dk;ksZRrj) approval was given by the Superintending Engineer, who is the competent authority, in relation to the work carried out by the claimant-respondent for which charge-sheet was issued and the same was done in the interest of department and after approval of the competent authority, no charge against the claimant-respondent survives. The relevant para on reproduction reads as under:-

^^esjs }kjk mijksDr izdj.k dk xgurk ls v/;;u fd;k x;kA ;kph }kjk fHkUu er ds lEcU/k esa tks vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gS blls izrhr gksrk gS fd ;kph }kjk vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh fHkUu er ds lHkh lokyksa dk tokc ns fn;k gSA ;kph dh iz'uxr izdj.k esa dksbZ dnk';rk ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gSA ;kph }kjk tks Hkh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS og dk;Zfgr esa dh x;h gS vkSj ml ij lHkh lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa o izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds gLrk{kj miyC/k gSaA v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk }kjk tks vuqeksnu gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh Fks] muds }kjk dk;ksZRrj vuqeksnu iznku fd;k x;k gSA dk;ksZRrj Lohd`fr iznku gksus ds ckn ;kph ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi Lo;a lekIr gks tkrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph dks iz'uxr izdj.k esa nks"kh ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha curk gSA

mi;qZDr izLrjksa dh foospuk ds n`f"Vxr ;kph dh ;kfpdk esa cy gS vkSj Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA n.Mkns'k fnukad 26&2&2018 ¼layXud la[;k&1½ fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA^^

On the aforesaid grounds/issues on which the Tribunal interfered in the order of punishment dated 26.02.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner has not addressed this Court nor there is any ground in the writ petition.

However, on the grounds on which the Tribunal has interfered in the order of punishment, we have also perused the relevant material on record.

We find from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer while holding the departmental enquiry, which is in the nature of a quasi judicial enquiry, has failed to adopt the procedure prescribed for holding the regular enquiry, as observed hereinabove.

We have also perused the disagreement note, which is on record. In the disagreement note, no reason has been recorded though while recording the disagreement note it is required. It is trite law that the disciplinary authority should record tentative reasons. Thus on this issue also, the order of the Tribunal is sustainable.

We have also considered the order of punishment, which was impugned before the Tribunal, the relevant portion of which has already been quoted hereinabove. It is apparent from the same that the disciplinary authority has failed to record the reasons for coming to the conclusion after taking note of the reply submitted by the charged employee (claimant-respondent). Thus, the finding related to requirement of recording of reasons in the order of punishment is also sustainable.

We have also taken note of the enquiry report, wherein the enquiry officer in specific terms has stated that the payment was made to M/s Unique Design and post facto (dk;ksZRrj) approval of rates was given by the competent authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer on 25.06.2009 and the approving authority neither raised any objection nor made any adverse comments regarding issuance of supply order without prior approval. The supply orders are signed by Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer prescribed procedure has not been vitiated. It is not the case of the State that prior approval of the competent authority is necessary. At this juncture, we would like to observe that there is no charge against the claimant-respondent related to embezzlement or loss caused to the Government.

We have also considered the observation made by the Tribunal in para 30 of the impugned order, based on which the State Counsel has argued that Tribunal acted as an Appellate Authority and assailed the order of Tribunal.

We find that the observations made by Tribunal in para 30 of impugned order are not, in any manner, affecting the reasons/grounds on which the Tribunal interfered in the order of "Minor Punishment" of "Censure" dated 26.02.2018 and moreover there is no charge related to embezzlement or causing loss to the Government as also that post facto (dk;ksZRrj) approval was given by the Superintending Engineer, whereby he approved the action of claimant-respondent and no plea has been raised that prior approval was required in the matter. As such, only on the arguments of State Counsel, based on the observations of Tribunal in para 30 of the order, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Tribunal dated 05.12.2019 in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 18.03.2021

Jyoti/-