Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Krishna Kumar Mishra And Another on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:60799-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7006 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food And Civil Supplies, U.P. Govt. Lucknow And Another
Respondent :- Krishna Kumar Mishra And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi,Indra Jeet Yadav,Manish Mishra
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri J.P. Tripathi learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 15.5.2023 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in claim petition no. 524 of 2009 whereby the order of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect imposed upon the charged officer, on being challenged before the tribunal, was set aside. The State has come up against the order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in the present writ petition.
3. Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has argued that insofar as the observation made by the learned tribunal as regards non-observance of the requisite procedure for imposition of major penalty is concerned, it cannot be disputed that certain lapses have occurred while holding the inquiry and the observations on that account made by the tribunal cannot be faulted with.
4. It is however submitted that the charge of non-deposit of Bank drafts timely is something which has not been satisfactorily explained during the course of the inquiry by the delinquent officer and it is this lapse which has resulted into a financial loss to the government in terms of earning interest on the said sum.
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in such a situation where financial loss was suffered by the State due to some default on the part of the charged officer but due procedure was not adopted to prove the charge by the inquiry officer, the matter ought to have been relegated to the departmental authority for fresh inquiry from the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet or a reply submitted in response thereto.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 refuting the arguments putforth has argued that the delinquent officer/opposite party no. 1 has retired from service in the year 2013 and has attained the age of more than 70 years now. It is submitted that a person above 70 years of age at this stage on being subjected to departmental inquiry may not be in a position to defend a charge relating to the year 1989 and the fading memory in such a situation would not help a delinquent employee fully well to defend his case.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions put-forth by earned counsel for the parties, we find that the order of punishment stopping one increment with cumulative effect has been set aside by the tribunal and while doing so all the consequential benefits have been allowed in his favour. The consequential benefits as per the direction issued remain undefined.
8. On the one hand opening of the departmental inquiry after retirement would be an unjust measure in the facts and circumstances of the case but at the same time the State can also not be put to financial jeopardy arisen out of the lapse on the part of inquiry officer in the matter of holding fair enquiry strictly in accordance with law. To probe at this stage that the default attributed to the delinquent officer, in fact, might be a lapse of some other staff, it is too late to discover.
9. In the circumstances of the case, the consequential benefits allowed by the tribunal may be restricted only to the grant of incremental benefit and to this extent the order passed by the tribunal shall stand clarified. The arrears of salary as well as the pension shall accordingly be paid to the opposite party no. 1 towards the full and final redressal of the claim in terms of the prayer made.
10. With this clarification or modification, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.9.2023
kanhaiya
