Bhupendra Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 2 ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4927 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bhupendra Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 2 ... on 12 February, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9003
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1752 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh Chauhan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.K. Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1.Heard Sri M. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that father of the petitioner was working on the post of Lekhpal (class-III) in Tehsil Nawabganj,District Barabanki and was suspended from service on 5.10.1990 on certain charges of dereliction of duties and accordingly disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a first information report was also lodged in case crime No.886 of 1990, under Section 409 of IPC at police station Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki.

3. The disciplinary proceedings concluded by passing the order of dismissal from service on 25.3.1992. Father of the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal had filed a writ petition No.3413 (S/S) of 1992 before this Court which was dismissed by means of order dated 22.5.1992 directing the petitioner to avail his alternate remedy against the order of dismissal. Subsequently appeal was filed before the Collector, Barabanki which was also dismissed on 25.8.2001. It is in aforesaid circumstances that father of the petitioner again filed a writ petition before this Court being writ petition No.4816 (S/S) of 2001 challenging the order of dismissal as well as rejection of his appeal and the said writ petition came to be dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order on 1.8.2014. In the criminal case the father of the petitioner was convicted vide order dated 18.6.2014 by the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki with rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.3000/-. Against the order of conviction father of the petitioner had filed an appeal before Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Barabanki and the said appeal was allowed on 28.7.2015 and father of the petitioner was absolved of all the charges levelled against him and at the time when the order of acquittal was passed it is stated that father of the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and consequently could not be reinstated. Finally, it is stated that father of the petitioner died on 22.1.2024.

4. After his acquittal the father of the petitioner submitted that he was entitled for payment of GPF amount and sought interference of this Court by filing writ petition No.156 (S/S) of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.9.2019 directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. It is in pursuance of the direction of this Court that the District Magistrate has rejected the said representation vide order dated 15.9.2020 which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

5. By the present writ petition the petitioner, who is son of the government servant, has assailed the impugned order dated 15.9.2020. It is stated that father of the petitioner had sought all service benefits considering the fact that he was dismissed from services on account of the order of conviction and after his appeal having been allowed he was entitled to be reinstated and consequently all service benefits deserved to be paid to him. It was further noticed that with regard to amount of GPF sought by father of the petitioner first we notice that his claim was 30 years old and correspondence was also made with the office of Accountant General, U.P. but no response has been received and the claim would be considered only when response is received in this regard and apart from the above, it is noticed that no other service benefit is required to be given to the petitioner and accordingly the representation was rejected.

6. In the present case, the petitioner has sought setting aside of the order of rejection dated 15.9.2020 and seeking a direction to pay entire retiral dues including 25 percent GPF along with 18 per cent interest.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once father of the petitioner was charged of the same charges in the criminal court and he stood acquitted in the criminal court then even the disciplinary proceedings would be rendered null and void and dismissal would be set aside once the government servant is acquitted in the criminal case. It was stated that in the criminal trial same witnesses have deposed and the testimony given during the criminal trial would supersede with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, he submits that once father of the petitioner was acquitted the respondents ought to have reinstated him and paid him all the service benefits including GPF to which he was entitled.

8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that dismissal order dated 25.3.1992 itself indicated that out of three charges that were leveled against him it is only the first charge pertaining to not handing over the charge of khatauni No.1394 and 1399 to another Lekhpal, namely, Dinesh Chandra was subject to the first information report while the second and third charges were not subject matter of the first information report. He submits that termination of the petitioner was not merely on the basis of order of conviction but also on the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated and the trial was underway and conviction order was passed only on 28.6.2014 and accordingly it cannot be said that the service were terminated on account of the order of conviction. He further submits that the dismissal order was assailed before this Court in writ petition No.4816 (S/S) of 2001 and after a detailed judgment the petition was dismissed on 1.8.2014 and accordingly the issue pertaining to dismissal of the father of the petitioner attained finality in as much as the judgment of this Court dated 1.8.2014 was never appealed before the Supreme Court or before a Division Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not make representation nor filed any petition since 1.8.2014 till filing of the writ petition claiming entitlement for GPF. Even in writ petition No.156 of 2019 he had claimed his GPF on account of his acquittal and the petition was confined only to the amount of GPF to be paid to him.

9. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that with regard to dismissal of the petition, the matter had attained finality in writ petition No.4816 (S/S) of 2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 1.8.2014. It is noticed that merely because subsequently father of the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate court, would not be a ground for setting aside of the order of dismissal. We have also taken note of the fact that the charges in the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal trial were distinct and separate and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted on the basis of evidence adduced therein and merely because the father of the petitioner was acquitted in the appellate court, would not be a ground to interfere in the order of dismissal.

10. Apart from thee above, it is noticed in the impugned order that the documents on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming amount of GPF is of 20.7.1996. The disciplinary authority prior to passing of the said order had communicated with the office of Accountant General, U.P. but he did not receive any response from them. Only ground on which the present petition has been filed is that from the letter dated 25.3.1992 which has been received by the petitioner on an application made under Right to Information Act vide order dated 23.10.2024 which is after death of his father. This issue has been raised for the first time. Interestingly, the father of the petitioner never raised this issue during his life time despite the fact that he had been acquitted in 2015 and died 9 years later on 22.1.2024. There is no other material with the petitioner apart from the letter dated 20.7.1996 and even the respondents also did not seem to have any information of an issue which pertains to 30 years prior. We also take note of the fact that unless and until it is demonstrated that whether the petitioner was entitled for payment as claimed by him and the same had not been paid during the life time of father of the petitioner only then such an amount can be paid. These issues have to be proved first before he can seek the relief from any court for making payment of the amount of outstanding amount of GPF From perusal of order dated 20.7.1996 it would not be demonstrated that either the petitioner was not entitled for the said amount or in case he was entitled to the same was not paid to him. On the other hand, it seems that the respondents also did not have any information looking to fact that the documents pertain to the year 1992 which is nearly 30 years prior to the said date.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.9.2020 where the representation has been rejected but it has been kept open that as and when the authorities are able to trace the documents or the petitioner is able to cite cogent evidence in this regard then his claim may be considered. In the aforesaid circumstances, no direction can be issued to the respondents to pay the amount of GPF as sought by the petitioner and accordingly we do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage.

12. However, it is open for the petitioner that in case he can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the authorities that his father was entitled for the payment of GPF and the same was not paid in which case it shall be open for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner.

13. Subject to aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 12.2.2025

RKM.