Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. ... vs Dr. Mahavir Singh on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 327 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Pashudhan Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.
Respondent :- Dr. Mahavir Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Mr. Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.04.2022, passed by State Public Services Tribunal, allowing the Claim Petition No.818 of 2020 filed by the respondent and setting aside the order of punishment dated 26.05.2020, ordering recovery of Rs.2,87,000/- from the respondent.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while the respondent was posted as Chief Veterinary Officer, Bareilly and he was scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004. A disciplinary enquiry was instituted by means of an order dated 28.12.2004 against him for certain alleged irregularities committed in purchasing some instruments and on the same date a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, containing five charges.
4. On 10.01.2005, the respondent submitted his reply and on 18.05.2005 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charge no.3 only.
5. It was only after a lapse of more than twelve years, that the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice dated 20.07.2017, to which the respondent submitted a reply on 25.08.2017.
6. On 22.12.2017, the Government passed order for continuing the enquiry against the respondent under Rule 351-A of Civil Service Rules and on 26.05.2020 the punishment order was passed, ordering recovery of Rs.2,87,000/- from the pension payable to the respondent.
7. Learned Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer had recorded statements of two witnesses; (i) Sanjay Jauhari, Assistant Accountant, and (ii) Atul Sharma, Senior Clerk, but the respondent was not provided any opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses in violation of Rule 7 of 1999 Rules.
8. Learned Tribunal has also recorded that the disciplinary authority had obtained comments of the Director, Animal Husbandry on 06.10.2008, but the copy of the same was not provided to the respondent and in absence of the same, the respondent could not submit his effective reply to the show cause notice.
9. On merits, the learned Tribunal recorded that the respondent submitted in the petition that cool cabinets had been purchased in District Aligarh in the year 1998-99 at the rate of Rs.94,900/- per piece, whereas the purchase in question had been made by the respondent in the year 2003-04 i.e. after four years since previous purchase and the article was purchased at the rate of Rs.97,950/- per piece and the purchase was made after obtaining approval of the Chief Development Officer, Bareilly and this fact has not been considered the the disciplinary authority.
10. Learned Tribunal held that the punishment order is non-speaking and has been passed without considering the points raised by the petitioner and learned Tribunal has set aside the punishment order.
11. We have gone through the order passed by learned Tribunal and heard the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
12. From an examination of the record, it appears that the disciplinary authority had relied upon the comments of the Director, Animal Husbandry and statements of the witnesses, although neither a copy of the comments of the Director was provided to the respondent nor he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In the absence of the copy of the statements having been given to the petitioner and an opportunity having been given to him to cross-examine the witnesses, the aforesaid material could not have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority and the punishment order passed after relying on the aforesaid material, is unsustainable in law and it has rightly been set aside by learned Tribunal.
13. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any such illegality in the order of learned Tribunal, which may warrant interference of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The writ petition lacks merit and, it is accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Ram.
