Allahabad High Court

Om Prakash Rai vs State Of U.P. And Others on 25 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146466
 
Judgment Reserved on 19.8.2025
 
Delivered on 25.8.2025
 
Court No. - 5
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35609 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Rai
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Rai,G.K. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav on behalf of respondents.

2. In the present case petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 5.7.2010, whereby he was punished with a major punishment of removal from service, order dated 30.11.2010 whereby his statutory appeal was rejected and order dated 10.1.2012 whereby his revision petition was dismissed by respective respondent.

3. The petitioner while working as Assistant Manager, Dr Ambedkar Depot of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh was served with a char-sheet dated 20.4.2009 whereby he was charged on 8 accounts that despite he remain absent for weeks he claimed salary on basis of forged documents and as such not only caused loss to the Corporation but committed misconduct in terms of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981.

4. Petitioner has participated in the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report where in all the charges were found to be proved. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and on basis of reply and after considering the inquiry report, a major punishment of removal from service of petitioner was passed and as referred above, appeal and revision thereof were also dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that inquiry was dehors the Rules, therefore, outcome of it was illegal.

6. The petitioner has not submitted his reply to the charge-sheet therefore Inquiry Officer ought to have conducted inquiry on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, but no oral or documentary evidence was brought on record.

7. Grounds taken in the appeal and revision petition were not considered respectively by Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors, (2009) 2 SCC 570 which was followed in a recent judgement by Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325. For reference paragraph 23 of Roop Singh(Supra) and para 17 of Satyendra Singh (Supra) are reproduced hereinafter:

23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.

xxx

17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.

9. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner has committed serious misconduct by claiming salary on basis of forged documents for the period he remained absent. A proper enquiry was conducted, witnesses were produced and petitioner was granted opportunity for cross-examination also. Petitioner has not placed any documentary evidence that he was present during that relevant period or leave was sanctioned.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that concerned officer has denied his signatures on Attendance Roll therefore, petitioner has committed a fraud and prepared forged documents.

11. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

12. At first blush, arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have substances, however, on perusal of pleadings, Court finds that petitioner is not a bonafide litigant and has not come up before this Court with clean hands.

13. In the writ petition, petitioner has not disclosed that Vinod Rai, a witness was examined during inquiry and petitioner has cross-examined him also. Even Inquiry Officer has asked questions to both i.e. the witnesses and petitioner and petitioner was satisfied with inquiry and he has endorsed the same also.

14. Aforesaid facts are clearly reflected from photocopy of the statement given by Shri Vinod Rai, Depot Incharge which is annexed in the counter affidavit as Annexure CA-4. For reference, scanned copy of the same is pasted below:

15. Court takes note that in para 18 of counter affidavit, where aforesaid facts were clearly disclosed. For reference, paragraph 18 of counter affidavit is reproduced hereinafter:

18. That the contents of paragraph No. 21 of the writ petition as stated that without considering the submission of the petitioner the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not correct. It is submitted that it has been clearly mentioned in the enquiry report that the petitioner has not submitted reply to the charge-sheet. He has submitted Farji Nominal Role and claiming the salary, which was fraudulent activity of the petitioner. He was absented from duty created hindrance in the work of the Corporation. He has not given any information for his absence, nor he submitted any document in regard to that, therefore, the proposed punishment was approved by the Competent Authority. The deponent is hereby filing the copy of the report submitted by the Assistant Regional Manager dated 16.08.2009, report submitted by the Senior Foreman Dr. Ambedkar Depot. Dated 03.10.2009, Copy of the Charge-sheet dated 20.04.2009, copy of the statement given by Sri Vinod Rai, Depot In-charge and the question put up by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, which clearly shows that the petitioner did not wants to put up any question, nor he wants to adduce any evidence or witness as such. For kind perusal of this Honble Court, Photostat copies of the report submitted by the Assistant Regional Manager dated 16.08.2009, report of Senior Foreman Dr. Ambedkar Depot. Dated 03.10.2009, copy of the Charge-sheet dated 20.04.2009, copy of the statement given by Sri Vinod Rai, Depot In-charge and the question put up by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure Nos. C.A.1, C.A.2, C.A.3 & C.A.4 respectively to this affidavit.

16. Court also takes note that aforesaid paragraph was replied by the petitioner in paragraph 17 of rejoinder affidavit wherein he has not specifically denied that he was granted opportunity of cross examination of witnesses. For reference para 17 of Rejoinder Affidavit is reproduced hereinafter:

17. That the averments & allegations made in para 18 of Counter Affidavit are false & baseless hence denied, in reply it is submitted that the petitioner was terminated from his service illegally vide order dated 05.07.2010 without considering the reply dated 30.12.2009 submitted by him.

17. Aforesaid reply in the rejoinder affidavit clearly demonstrates that petitioner is not a bonafide litigant. He has not denied it in specific words that he was not granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Such fact remained absent in the writ petition, in memo of appeal and in the revision petition also, therefore, Court is of opinion that process of natural justice was followed and petitioner was granted opportunity which he has availed to cross-examine the witnesses.

18. In the above background, Court also perused inquiry report wherein Inquiry Officer has taken note that petitioner has not filed any reply to the charge-sheet but he has appeared on 3.10.2009 during inquiry and has cross-examined the witnesses also and on basis of such document, Inquiry Officer after consideration returned a finding that petitioner has claimed salary on basis of forged nominal roll/attendance roll.

19. Court also perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

20. Petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice wherein also he has not denied that he was granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

21. The Disciplinary Authority by a very detail order has found that charges were proved. Petitioner has committed a serious misconduct, therefore, punishment of removal from service was awarded. For reference relevant part of inquiry report and the order passed by Disciplinary Authority are reproduced hereinafter: after:

Inquiry Report:-

आरोप पत्र का उत्तरः-

आरोपी द्वारा आरोप पत्र का उत्तर प्रस्तुत ही नही किया गया।

जांच कार्यवाहीः-

सेवा प्रबन्धक महोदय आजमगढ़ के पत्रांकः 552आजम / क्षे०प्र० / अनु०/डिस्क/09, दिनांकः 20-4-09 द्वारा उक्त प्रकरण में अधोहस्ताक्षरी को जांच अधिकारी नामित करते हुए पत्रावली जांच हेतु इस कार्यालय को प्राप्त करायी गयी। पत्रावली प्राप्त होने पर इस स्तर से प्रकरण में नियमानुसार कार्यवाही प्रारम्भ की गयी। दिनांक 29-6-09, 6-7-09 एवं 25-8-09 एवं 3-10-09 की तिथि जांच हेतु निर्धारित किया गया। दिनांक 3-10-09 को रिपोर्टकर्ता एवं आरोपी उपस्थित हुए। रिपोर्टकर्ता द्वारा अपने रिपोर्ट की पुष्टि की गयी। आरोपी द्वारा रिपोर्टकर्ता से एवं मेरे द्वारा दोनों से जिरह किया गया। अन्त में आरोपी के पूर्ण सन्तुष्टि एंव सहमति के उपरान्त जॉच कार्यवाही बन्द की गयी।

विवेचनाः-

मेरे द्वारा आरोपी को जारी आरोप पत्र, रिपोर्टकर्ता के रिपोर्ट जांच में आये बयानों सहित सम्पूर्ण प्रकरण पत्रावली का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि आरोपी द्वारा अपने बचाव में झूठे तथ्यों एंव तर्कों का सहारा लिया गया। यही कारण रहा कि आरोप पत्र प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त भी उसके द्वारा अपना उत्तर प्रस्तुत नही किया गया। आरोपी द्वारा फर्जी नामिनल रोल प्रेषित कर अपना वेतन क्लेम कराया गया। जो स्पष्ट रूप से धोखाधड़ी का परिचायक है। आरोपी द्वारा निगम को धोखा देकर अपना वेतन आहरित कर निगम को आर्थिक क्षति पहुँचायी गयी है। आरोपी 15-10-08 से बिना सूचना अनुपस्थित रहा, जिसके कारण निगम का कार्य बाधित हुआ, संचालन पर प्रभाव पड़ा। आरोपी द्वारा अपने अनुपस्थिति के संबंध में कोई लिखित सूचना नही दी गयी। सेवा विनियमावली के तहत यदि कोई कर्मचारी अपनी डियूटी पर उपस्थित नही हो पा रहा है, तो उसे 24 घन्टे के अन्दर इसकी लिखित सूचना देनी होगी। आरोपी द्वारा सेवा विनियमवाली का खुला उल्लघंन कर गम्भीर कदाचार किया गया है।

निष्कर्षः-

उपरोक्त तथ्यों एवं तर्को के आधार पर आरोपी पर लगाया गया आरोप पूर्णरूप से प्रमाणित पाया गया।

*****

Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority:-

"अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा प्रकरण में प्राप्त समस्त अभिलेखों का गहनता से अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि जॉच अधिकारी ने जॉच रिपोर्ट में उल्लेख किये है कि आरोपी द्वारा अपने बचाव में झूठे तथ्यों एवं तर्को का सहारा लिया गया और यही कारण रहा कि आरोप पत्र प्राप्त करने के उपरान्त भी उसके द्वारा उत्तर प्रस्तुत नही किया गया। आरोपी द्वारा फर्जी नामिनल रोल प्रसतुत कर अपना वेतन क्लेम कराया गया जो स्पष्ट रूप से धोखा धड़ी का परिचायक है। निगम को धोखा देकर अपना वेतन आहरित कर निगम को आर्थिक हानि पहुँचायी गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में आरोपी द्वारा जॉच अधिकारी के समक्ष जांच के दौरान भी अपना कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नही किया गया। आरोपी दिनांक 15-10-08 के बाद बिना सूचना अनुपस्थित रहकर निगम का कार्य बाधित किया, जिसका संचालन पर प्रभाव पड़ा। अनुपस्थित के सम्बन्ध में आरोपी द्वारा कारण बताओं नोटिस के उत्तर में पत्नी की बीमारी का उल्लेख किया है, के प्रमाण में किसी प्रकार का साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नही किया गया तथा उक्त की सूचना पूर्व में कार्यालय में देना बताया गया जिसके उत्तर में सी०फो० डा० अम्बेडकर डिपो ने अपने रिपोर्ट एवं बयान में स्पष्ट रूप से अवगत कराया गया कि आरोपी माह नवम्बर 2009 से ना तो उपस्थित विवरण प्रस्तुत कर रहा है, ना तो डियूटी पर उपस्थित हो रहा है और ना ही अनुपस्थित के सम्बन्ध में कोई सूचना दी गयी। कर्मचारी (अधिकारी से भिन्न) सेवा नियमावली 1981 संशोधित 1983 के तहद् यदि कोई सरकारी सेवक अपनी डियूटी पर उपस्थित नही हो पा रहा है तो 24 घंटे के अन्दर उक्त की सूचना अपने सक्षम अधिकारी अथवा नियंत्रण अधिकारी को देना चाहिए परन्तु आरोपी द्वारा ऐसा नही किया गया जो गम्भीर कदाचार की श्रेणी में आता है। इस प्रकार आरोपी कार्मिक माह सितम्बर 2008 एवं माह अक्टूबर 2008 में डियूटी न करके एक सुनियोजित योजना के तहद निगम को धोखा देकर फर्जी उपस्थित विवरण पर हस्ताक्षर करके वेतन आहरित करना, निगम को वित्तिय हानि पहुँचाना, बिना सूचना अनुपस्थित होकर निगम के सुगम संचालन में अवरोध उत्पन्न करना, निगम अधिकारी को उपस्थित की भ्रामक सूचना देना, निगम नियमावली के विपरीत कार्य करना, अनुपस्थित की सूचना न देकर गम्भीर कदाचार करना एवं आरोप पत्र में लगाये गये दोषों के लिये आरोपी को पूर्ण रूपेण दोषी पाता हूँ। आरोपी द्वारा आरोप पत्र का उत्तर न देने से भी स्पष्ट है कि आरोपी को अपने बचाव में कोई साक्ष्य नही था, जिस कारण आरोप पत्र का उत्तर न देना एंव कारण बताओं नोटिस के उत्तर में ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नही किया जिससे प्रस्तावित दण्ड को शिथिल किया जा सके। आरोप पत्र में लगाये गये दोषों के लिये दोषी पाये जाने के फलस्वरूप प्रस्तावित दण्ड को शिथिल करने का कोई औचित्य नही पाता हूँ।

अतः श्री ओम प्रकाश राय सहायक मैकनिक डा० अम्बेडकर डिपो को उपरोक्त मामले में दोषी पाये जाने के फलस्वरूप प्रस्तावित दण्ड को यथावत रखते हुए निगम बोर्ड द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारी का प्रयोग करते हुए इनके समस्त देयक जब्त करते हुए सेवा से पृथक (Removal from service) करने का आदेश किया जाता है, तथा प्रकरण अन्तिम रूप से निस्तारित किया जाता है।

22. In the aforesaid circumstances, such proper procedure for inquiry was completely followed and oral evidence was also recorded. Petitioner was granted opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, which he has availed also. Inquiry Officer has also put questions to the petitioner and witness and only thereafter charges were found proved.

23. It may be a case that inquiry report is not very descriptive, but necessary and essential facts and details of proceedings were recorded.

24. Petitioner has not disclosed relevant facts either in writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit. Petitioner has not filed any document which could remotely rebut the serious allegations/charge.

25. Disciplinary Authority has passed a very detail and reasoned order taking note of contentions and inquiry report as well as oral evidence and considering that petitioner has committed a serious misconduct by claiming salary on basis of forged documents such as nominal roll, despite he remained absent without sanction of leave, therefore, Court finds that punishment awarded i.e removal from service is not shocking disproportionate, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

26. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.8.2025