Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. ... vs Smt. Sushila Devi And Others on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 27 of 2022
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Revenue Deptt.Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Smt. Sushila Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
(C.M.Application No. 1 of 2022)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State authorities and learned counsel representing the respondents.
Having regard to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay in preferring this special appeal is, hereby, condoned.
(Order on Appeal)
Heard learned State Counsel representing the appellant-State authorities and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 3.
By means of this Special Appeal the appellants have sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6065(SS) of 2009, filed by the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 1to 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has been allowed.
At this juncture itself, we may indicate that in Writ Petition No. 6065(SS) of 2009, under challenge was the order dated 20.02.2009, dismissing the petitioner from service.
The sole ground urged by learned Counsel for the appellants-State authorities is that in view of the admission of the guilt made by the petitioner, the punishment imposed upon him, could not have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. It has also been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants- State authorities that the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal, has completely ignored the fact that the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to him after conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, had indicated therein that the charges are admitted. The submission, thus, is that in view of the said admission, interference in the impugned order of punishment was not warranted and thus the learned Single Judge has erred in law.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and order under appeal rendered by learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and this Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us on this Special Appeal.
The petitioner was a confirmed Lekhpal, however, in relation to certain alleged misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued against him on 30.11.2006 which contained three charges. The first charge related to his alleged unauthorized absence, the second charge related to alleged negligence in preparing revenue records and the third charge pertained to the petitioner allegedly not furnishing information regarding ponds. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 22.01.2007 whereupon certain enquiry is said to have been conducted and petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 31.10.2008 alongwith the enquiry report calling upon him to file his reply/comments to the enquiry report. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.12.2008. Learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority without taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet and also without taking into account the evidence available on record. The judgment and order under appeal further records that the punishment order was passed solely on the reply submitted by the petitioner on 04.12.2008 which is the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice.
It has been urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that in view of the admission of guilt made by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice submitted by him on 04.12.2008, nothing more was required to be done to prove him guilty and accordingly the disciplinary authority has correctly passed the punishment order.
What we need to examine at this juncture is as to whether the contents of the reply dated 04.12.2008 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice will or will not amount to admission of guilt. It is needless to observe that in case any submission made by any delinquent officer is to be treated as to his admission of guilt, the admission should be unequivocal and categorical that is to say, without any rider. It should thus be unqualified. When we perused the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 04.12.2008, what we find is that in the first paragraph of the said reply the petitioner had only stated that he was suspended on 30.09.2006 and three charges were levelled against him. In paragraph 2 of the said reply dated 04.12.2008 the petitioner had stated that he had submitted reply to the charges on 25.01.2007 and that in enquiry report out of three charges, two were found proved whereas in relation to third charge, it was partially proved. In the third paragraph, the petitioner had only stated that he will not commit any such mistake in future and that he should be pardoned.
The contents of third paragraph of the reply dated 04.12.2008 in our considered opinion, cannot be termed to be admission of guilt on the part of petitioner for the reason that such admission is not categorical or unequivocal. In the said reply, the petitioner had only stated that he would not commit any mistake in future and that it should be his pardoned. This reply was submitted by him when he was under suspension. There is another circumstance which needs reflection by us. In the last paragraph the petitioner has stated that allegation made against the petitioner may be dropped and considering the ever rising inflation, he may be restored in service.
We thus conclude that reply dated 04.12.2008 does not, in any manner, constitute an admission of guilt. Hence we are not inclined to buy the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-State authorities.
Resultantly, we do not see any reason to interfere in the Special Appeal. The special appeal is highly misconceived, which is, hereby, dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner had died however, the dues which have accrued in favour of the respondents being his legal heirs, have yet not been paid.
In this view of the matter, we direct that the authority concerned shall clear all the dues and benefits to which the respondent nos. 1 to 3 may be entitled to under law and as per Rules, expeditiously say within a period of two months from today. Learned Counsel for the State shall apprise the District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate of this order forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022/Jyoti/-
