Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar Pathak vs Housing Commissioner Avas Vikas ... on 27 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT A No. -36256 of 2001
Sushil Kumar Pathak
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
Housing Commissioner Avas Vikas Parishad And Others
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
K.D. Tiwari, J.C. Sharma, Pramod Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Vinay Khare, Awadhesh Tiwari, S.C.
Judgment Reserved on 20.8.2025
Delivered on 27.8.2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, Advocate for respondents.
2. Petitioner while working as an Accountant in Awav Vikas Parishad, Kanpur was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.8.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appeal thereof was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.9.2003.
3. Initially, only the Appellate Order dated 29.9.2003 was not challenged. However, on basis of an order dated 1.10.2018 passed by Division Bench, of this Court, an Amendment Application was filed which was allowed and thereafter amended writ petition was filed, wherein both the aforesaid orders were challenged.
4. Petitioner has come up with a case that a charge-sheet dated 25.5.2025 was served upon him and a reply was sought by him within 15 days. The charge-sheet was on 7 counts that the petitioner has committed various irregularities in the allotment of land, thereby caused financial loss to the Parishad and despite various letters communicated to the Inquiry Officer as well as Higher Officer, relevant documents were not provided to him, nor any opportunity was granted to him to peruse the same, therefore petitioner was not able to submit his reply to the charge-sheet and proceedings were concluded ex-parte, wherein a major punishment was passed. The Appellate Authority has not considered that petitioner was not granted reasonable opportunity to place his case.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that he was made a scapegoat and his higher officers being responsible for irregularities, though have faced disciplinary proceedings, but they were awarded minor punishment only.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred letters submitted by the petitioner that despite a direction was passed by the Inquiry Officer to appear before an Officer to peruse the documents, but it was not provided since the concerned officer was not present and without affording any further opportunity, inquiry was conducted ex-parte, as such principles of natural justice was completely violated.
7. Per contra,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents by referring documents and impugned order submitted that petitioner has not availed the opportunity granted to him to peruse the documents before the Department, however, he has availed opportunity and perused the documents before the Inquiry Officer on 14.7.1997. Still, when no reply was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, on basis of available records, charges were found proved and considering the nature of misconduct, maximum punishment was awarded to him.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no error in the decision making process and the punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate.
9. After considering the aforesaid submissions and going through the records, case of the petitioner is essentially that he was not allowed to peruse the documents, therefore, he was not able to submit his reply. However, on basis of records, it is not under much dispute that petitioner has not availed his opportunity to peruse the records before Sampatti Prabandhak Adhikari between 16.1.1997 to 4.2.1997 and thereafter all the documents were sent to the Inquiry Officer where the petitioner has appeared on 14.7.1997 and perused the records. Still, thereafter no reply was submitted by the petitioner and on basis of materials available, charges were found proved against him. Thereafter, petitioner has filed an appeal wherein he has sought that Inquiry Officer be summoned for cross-examination without mentioning that petitioner has already perused the documents and without making any substantial argument or submission, petitioner has tried to unnecessary delay the proceedings by making unnecessary remarks. However, finally the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of petitioner extracting the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority.
10. In the amended writ petition also, there is no averment as to whether the finding returned in the impugned order that petitioner has perused the records on 14.7.1997 was a perverse finding, therefore, Court cannot construe an oral argument without any basis that the petitioner has never perused the documents.
11. In the above background, Court also takes note that there are serious allegations against the petitioner that he has embezzled Rs.15000/- in one case and Rs.58,000/- in another case. Petitioner was not able to produce any documents that the said amount was not received by him or it was deposited later on.
12. Other allegations against the petitioner are also very serious that on basis of incomplete documents, he has prepared agreement with the allottees and has failed to brought any document or raised substantial submission either before the Disciplinary Authority or before this Court which could contradict the referred findings.
13. Charge No.4 was that without scrutinizing all the documents, petitioner has carried out proceedings of allotment which has caused financial loss also, therefore, on basis of material available and in absence of any explanation, all the charges were found proved and as referred above, since there is no error in the decision making process, therefore, no interference is required.
14. Last argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been made a scapegoat as his all other senior employees who have faced disciplinary proceedings were let out with minor punishment on ground that they have shifted burden of all the irregularities on the petitioner. There punishment orders are on record.
15. In aforesaid cases, delinquents have submitted their replies which were considered, whereas the petitioner is guilty of his own act since instead of submitting his reply, he has wasted his energy in making various representations to higher authorities as well as before the Appellate Authority.
16. Court also takes note that petitioner was aged about 58 years when the Amendment Application was filed in the year 2019, therefore, he has already crossed age of superannuation, therefore, prayer of petitioner that quantum of punishment be reconsidered cannot be accepted.
17. Petitioners concentration was on different line as he wants to call Inquiry Officer for cross-examination which is an alien procedure to disciplinary proceedings, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
18. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
August 27, 2025
SB
