Ram Saran Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3291 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20611 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Saran Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard Shri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 imposing a penalty on the petitioner in furtherance of a departmental inquiry which has been affirmed by means of order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.2 in consequence of the appeal filed by the petitioner being dismissed.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner alongwith the other Collection Amins were being paid salary regularly but certain disputes arose during the financial year 2007-2008 which led to delay in payment of salary and the salary for the months of January 2007 and April 2007 could not be paid.

It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the acute problems faced by the Collection Amins, a compromise/settlement was arrived between the Federation of Amins and the then Tehsildar, namely, Shri Shubhash Mani Tripathi who agreed to make the payment of 60% of salary to the Collection Amins for the month of January 2007. In furtherance of the said compromise, the then Tehsildar Shri Shubhash Mani Tripathi issued a cheque bearing No.66777 on 18.02.2009 in the name of the petitioner who got it encashed on 19.02.2009 and the said amount was handed over to the Tehsildar and the same was distributed to the concerned Amins including the petitioner after getting signature on the register by affixing the necessary revenue stamps indicating payment of 60% of the salary for the month of January 2007.

It is in view of the aforesaid incident that the petitioner was issued a show a cause notice dated 22.04.2009 by the then Tehsildar, Tilhar. The petitioner in response thereto filed his detailed reply on 11.05.2009. The petitioner was also served with a chargesheet on 12.10.2009 levelling four charges against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate who submitted its report to the respondent no.3 the disciplinary authority and thereafter the petitioner was issued a show cause notice which was considered by the disciplinary authority and by means of impugned order dated 14.01.2011, the petitioner was awarded a punishment imposing the stoppage of one increment permanently and also an adverse entry as punishment. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal which also did not find favour and was dismissed by means of order dated 16.03.2016 thereafter the petitioner approached this Court.

The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry office did not consider the affidavits filed by the other Collection Amins corroborating the defence of the petitioner regarding the compromise as well as the fact that the then Tehsildar Shri Shubhash Mani Tripathi had paid 60% of the salary for the month of January 2007 and it is for the aforesaid purpose that the said cheque was issued which was encashed by the petitioner and thereafter the funds were handed over to the Tehsildar concerned.

It is urged that the evidence which had been filed was not taken note of and without examining the then Tehsildar Shri Shubhash Mani Tripathi findings have been returned by the inquiry officer which was assailed by the petitioner by filing his response to the show cause notice but was ignored and the punishment order came to be passed. Even the Appellate Authority did not consider the aforesaid material and affirmed the order passed by the respondent no.3 and in view thereof the findings are perverse and accordingly the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the aforesaid submission has pointed out that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction rather the scope is narrow to a limited extent to ascertain whether the inquiry was conducted by following the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In the instant case, it is urged that it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been provided adequate opportunity rather it is a case of re-appreciation of evidence which is not to be under taken in exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of matters emanating from departmental proceedings and thus for the reasons aforesaid, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record, it will be evident that the petitioner was required to meet four charges; the first charge related to not meeting with the recovery targets as fixed. The second charge related to the misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,91,973/- which was withdrawn from Account No.771 which was for the dues of cane growers and the same amount was not reimbursed in the said account. The third charge related to non-furnishing of fitness certificate and joining after availing medical leave from 25.05.2009 to 10.06.2009 and the fourth charge was for not attending the various meeting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has focused his submissions only in respect of Charge No.2 regarding the financial misappropriation.

In pith and substance, the submissions is that the petitioner had encashed the cheque which was issued by the then Tehsildar and had handed over the amount to the Tehsildar in terms of a compromise arrived at between the Tehsildar and the Collection Amins to paid 60% of the salary to the Collection Amins for the month of January 2007.

In this regarding, the record would indicate that the petitioner had merely filed certain affidavits of Collection Amins to indicate that the compromise had taken place and the amount as withdrawn was paid towards 60% of the salary of the Collection Amins. This stand of the petitioner did not find favour with the inquiry officer nor it found favour with the Appellate Authority for the reason that the petitioner could not establish or lead any evidence regarding the alleged compromise arrived at between the Collection Amins and the then Tehsildar. Even the copy of the alleged affidavit which has been brought on record of this petition as annexure no.15 does not indicate that what were the terms of the compromise who had signed it and vague averment without any particulars have been mentioned nor the alleged compromise was filed before the enquiry proceedings or this Court.

On the other hand, it could not be disputed by the petitioner that the cheque was encashed by the petitioner. Under what circumstances, the petitioner encashed the cheque that too in respect of the such account which was meant for the payment dues to the cane growers has also not been explained or established.

The petitioner also could not demonstrate the evidence which was led by him to substantiate his own case. No effort was made by the petitioner to establish his stand whereas the letter dated 08.06.2009, 09.07.2009 and 20.07.2009 by the Tehsildar Tilhar was relied to substantiate the charge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not adequately explain that the salary only for the month of January 2007 was held up and how was it paid in the year 2009 in absence of any written compromise and there was no explanation regarding the remaining 40% of the salary and how was that paid and on what date and this has also not been indicated.

In the aforesaid backrop, it will be relevant to notice the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. N. Gangaraj, AIR Online 2020 SC page 201 wherein the Apex Court as traced the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of matters emanating from domestic departmental inquiry by taking note of the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the aforesaid point wherein it has been held that once the disciplinary authority has agreed that the findings of the inquiry officer and had passed an order of punishment and the appeal has also been dismissed, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by re-appreciating the evidence as it does not act as court of appeal. In view of the settled legal principles as underline in the judgment of N. Gangaraj (supra), this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner by his submission is tempting the Court to re-appreciate the evidence which is not legally permissible.

In the instant case the findings of the inquiry officer has been found appropriate by the disciplinary authority and the appeal has also been dismissed, hence this Court cannot act as an appellate court and re-appraise the evidence.

Having noticed the fact that the petitioner himself could not defend the charge by adequate and appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that there is any error in the impugned order, especially when it is not the case of the petitioner that he was subjected to any disability or there has been any infraction of any provision or rule or there has been violation of principles of natural justice.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Court does not find any merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs are made easy.

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

ank