Ravi Pratap Rao vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4931 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravi Pratap Rao vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 12 February, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9093
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1760 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Rao
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shatrughan Sah,Ajay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Sitapur.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release all the pending dues including arrears of salary, subsistence allowance and all the consequential benefit to the petitioner permissible under the law and quashed the malicious inquiry report keeping in view the judgment passed by the trial court dated 05.08.2023 and this Hon'ble Court dated 26.09.2022.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to opposite parties to pay the damages to the petitioner for the harassment mental agony and financial losses suffered by the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner while working on the post of Sahayak Krishi Nirikshak and had been dismissed from service by means of order dated 30.05.1976. The dismissal order was passed after due inquiry in which the petitioner did not participate. The petitioner chose not to file any appeal against the dismissal order nor had he challenged the said order since the year 1976 before any court of law. It has further been submitted that although the charges levelled against the petitioner pertains to misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 2,31,641/- and also concealing of the relevant record regarding the same. On the same facts a first information report had been lodged against the petitioner, and criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which ultimately resulted in his acquittal by the competent court vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2003. The appeal filed by the State has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2022.

4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ-A No.3634 of 2024 assailing the order of termination dated 30.05.1976 and also sought direction to the respondents to pay entire salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioner from his joining to retirement and further release the arrears of the salary from the date of 01.06.1973 to 15.05.1976 as well as subsistence allowance, which was payable from 15.05.1974 to 31.05.1976. This Court after considering the submissions of the petitioner, dismissed the petition by means of judgment and order dated 10.05.2024.

5. While dismissing the said writ petition, the Court had noticed in paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment that there are certain dues which have still not been paid to the petitioner pertaining to subsistence allowance and salary, which was indicated by the department in the letter dated 04.02.2003 and consequently left it open for the respondents to ensure that in case any dues are still left to be paid to the petitioner, the same shall be paid to him.

6. While dismissing the petitioner from service by means of order dated 30.05.1976, the respondents had also sought to recover an amount of Rs.2,31,641.88, which is the alleged amount which was misappropriated by the petitioner and consequently, the same was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Once the petitioner was unsuccessful in writ proceedings, the respondents have proceeded to recover the said amount by means of order dated 12.09.2024, which has been assailed before this Court in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, then the order, which has been based on the same set of charges and the disciplinary proceedings would not be sustainable and any order for recovery having been made in the disciplinary proceedings was also liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India and hence submits that the order dated 12.09.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that after due inquiry where full opportunity was given to the petitioner but he deliberately chose not appear in the disciplinary proceedings and did not file any appeal against the order of punishment dated 30.05.1976 and even the challenge made in writ proceedings before this Court in Writ-A No. 3634 of 2024 was unsuccessful and accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the said recovery is being made against the petitioner.

9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings would not be a ground and also would not erase the effect of the order of dismissal dated 31.05.1976 or the judgment of this Court dated 10.05.2024 where the validity of the order of dismissal has been upheld and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

10. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

11. The brief facts in the present case are not disputed, inasmuch as, the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Agriculture Inspector at the relevant time was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order of dismissal dated 30.05.1976 and also it was saddled with the recovery for an amount of Rs.2,31,641.88. The said order was assailed in writ proceedings in Writ-A No. 3634 of 2024, which was also dismissed by order of this Court dated 10.05.2024 and accordingly, the order dated 30.05.2024 attained finality, inasmuch as, the same was never assailed before any superior Court and even the Division Bench of this Court. The respondents are seeking to implement the order and recover the amount as stated therein. This Court further noticed that merely because in the meanwhile the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and even the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed would not be a ground any ground for interference with the order of dismissal or with the order of the coordinate Bench dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner.

12. This issue was considered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down the following parameters to help make a discussion regarding the conduct of both proceedings, which reads as under:-

"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."

13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 12.09.2024. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of merits and is dismissed.

14. However, it is noticed that learned Single Judge had observed that there are certain dues which are to be paid to the petitioner including subsistence allowance and salary and the same has not been paid to the petitioner till date, accordingly, the respondents shall ensure compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 with expedition.

15. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed.

.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 12.2.2025

Virendra