Allahabad High Court
Hakim Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Court No.49
Case :- Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15470 of 2021
Petitioner :- Hakim Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
Since only a question of law as to "whether the petitioner could be punished for the charge of making payments by cheques and not by e-payment mode", was involved, the Court has decided the case without calling for a counter affidavit.
In the instant case, the petitioner who was posted in the district of Baghpat and had the additional charge of Statistics Officer from 21.10.2013 to 27.8.2014, was required to distribute certain amounts to Aanganbadi Karyakatries. While he was given the task of distributing various amounts, he had distributed the same not by e-payment mode but by cheques and, therefore, he was charged for committing irregularities. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25.5.2018. The petitioner replied to the charges on 24.8.2018 and had stated that since the e-payment mode was not working and since the year was coming to an end i.e. the 31st of March was approaching, the petitioner apprehensive of the fact that the amount which would have come for payment would be returned unutilized, had made the payments by cheques and, therefore, had not committed any irregularity. However, upon the receiving of the reply, an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer before the Secretary, Village Development Department, Lucknow. The petitioner by a communication dated 25.4.2019, was served with the enquiry report with a further direction that he may submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.4.2019 and thereafter by an order dated 2.7.2020, the order of punishment was passed by which 10% of the pension amount payable to the petitioner was permanently deducted from his pension. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner had represented on 10.8.2020 and when the representation was not being decided, he had filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.13380 of 2021. However, he had got this writ petition dismissed as withdrawn on 4.10.2021. When the instant writ petition thereafter was filed, this Court had dismissed the writ petition on 16.11.2021 saying that when for the same cause of action, an earlier writ petition being Writ-A No.13380 of 2021 had been filed, this writ petition was barred by the principles of constructive res-judicata. However, the Special Appellate Court on 14.2.2022 in Special Appeal No.426 of 2021 set-aside the order dated 16.11.2021 and, therefore, this writ petition has been placed before me for a fresh consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when as per the charge sheet itself the charge was that the petitioner had committed an irregularity because of the fact that he had not made the payments by the e-payment mode but had made the payments by cheques then at the most it could be said that he had not followed certain directions of superiors for which he could be reprimanded. No punishment by which the petitioner would be financially affected for the rest of his life could have been given to the petitioner. He submits that a perusal of the enquiry report definitely shows that there was no financial irregularity committed by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the irregularity, if at all, was committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has submitted that no amount could be deducted from the petitioner's entitlement after he had retired.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submitted that when the petitioner had committed an irregularity then a punishment was a must and since he had retired on 30.4.2019 from the post of Chief Development Officer, there was no purpose in giving a punishment of reprimand etc.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that from the perusal of the charges itself it is established beyond any doubt that the petitioner had not indulged in any embezzlement and in fact if, at all, there was anything wrong done by the petitioner it was only to the extent that he had not abided by the directions given to him to pay the amounts by e-payment mode. The punishment awarded to the petitioner, therefore, appears to be excessive and not commensurate to the wrong done by him. At the most the petitioner could be reprimanded for not following the directions.
Under such circumstances, the order impugned dated 2.7.2020 by which 10% of the petitioner's pension had been deducted is set aside. The petitioner shall continue to get the pension which was due to him on the date when he had retired.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 12.05.2022
GS
(Siddhartha Varma, J.)
