Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others on 15 July, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
2025:AHC:113048
Reserved :- 09/07/2025
Delivered :- 15/07/2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21629 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta,Rajiv Joshi
Counsel for Respondent :- K.N. Yadav,N.K. Yadav,Nikhil Kumar,Prashant,Satyam Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner while working as Secretary in Sadhan Sahkari Samit Karaura, Bulandshahar was dismissed from services vide order dated 01.06.2022 for repeated instance of embezzlement.
2. Aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal and by order dated 10.01.2005, order under appeal was set aside and matter was remitted back to District Administrative Committee to pass a fresh order.
3. The District Administrative Committee passed an order dated 03.06.2006 whereby the petitioner was again dismissed from services.
4. Challenge to it by way of statutory appeal was failed vide order dated 18.06.2008.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner preferred a Writ A No. 53113/2008 against orders dated 03.06.2006 and 18.06.2008 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 whereby both orders were set aside. For reference, relevant part of order is quoted below :-
"In view of the aforesaid admitted and conceded position that the proceedings are vitiated and have been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no option but to set aside the order dated 3.6.2006 as well as the appellate order dated 18th June, 2008. Accordingly the said orders are quashed.
The proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner by the District Administrative Committee after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defence against the two charge sheets on which reliance has been placed by the respondents. The petitioner shall be afforded reasonable opportunity and also shall be allowed to access to the documents which may be necessary for his defence. The District Administrative Committee shall apprise the petitioner of about the documents which are required by him in writing and the District Administrative Committee shall thereafter proceed to take a decision in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is to retire shortly. In view of the aforesaid position, it is provided that the District Administrative Committee shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from today.
In case, the respondents choose to consider the petitioner still under suspension then in that event the petitioner shall be entitled to his subsistence allowance from the concerned society.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed."
6. In pursuance of above order, petitioner was allowed to rejoin, however, by order dated 26.08.2010, he was again put under suspension and on same day, earlier issued charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet were also served.
7. It is a case of petitioner that he has submitted repeated letters dated 31.08.2010, 25.09.2010, 27.09.2010, 07.10.2010, 25.10.2010 and 29.10.2010 and demanded necessary documents, however, according to petitioner, it were never supplied.
8. The District Administrative Committee submitted an inquiry report and adopted a Resolution dated 08.01.2011 and its relevant part being "विचारण" is as follows :-
"कमेटी द्वारा सम्यक विचार विमर्श उपरांत उक्तानुसार गबन/ अपहरण, गंभीर वित्तीय अधिनियमितताये करने तथा समिति का पूर्ण चार्ज न सौपने का दोषी पाए जाने के फलस्वरूप सर्वसम्मति से निर्णय लिया गया कि श्री प्रेम सिंह निलंबित सचिव को एक कारण बताओ नोटिस दिया जाये कि उपरोक्त आरोपों के बारे में वह अपना पक्ष इस कारण बताओ नोटिस के १५ दिन के अंदर प्रेषित करना सुनिश्चित करे कि क्यों न उपरोक्त गंभीर आरोप सिद्ध होने की स्थिति में सेवा से पृथक कर अन्य विधिक कार्यवाही संपन्न की जाये। यदि श्री प्रेम सिंह का उत्तर निर्धारित समय तक प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो यह मानकर कि इन्हे आरोपों के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहना है तथा सभी आरोप मान्य है। पत्रावली पुनः कमेटी के निर्णयार्थ प्रस्तुत की जाये।"
9. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from services vide order dated 15.01.2011. Relevant part thereof is mentioned below :-
"अतः कमेटी द्वारा श्री गुप्ता को पूर्व में निर्गत आरोप पत्र व अऩुपूरक आरोप पत्र के सापेक्ष श्री गुप्ता के पूर्व प्रेषित उत्तर तथा संयुक्त जांच अधिकारियों की संयुक्त जांच आख्याओं का गम्बीरता पूर्वक बिन्दुवार परीक्षण करने तथा सम्यक विचार विमर्श उपरान्ति श्री गुप्ता को आरोप पत्र के आरोप संख्या 1,3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 में निम्नानुसार मु० 86331.78 रु. गबन/अपरहरण, मु० 80866.00 रु. र्दुविनियोग/गम्भीर वित्तीय अनियमित्तायें करने, अभिलेखों में कूटकरण करने, अभिलेखों को फाड़ने/नष्ट करने तथा साधन सहकारी समिति लि० करौरा के प्रकरण में गठित अनुपूरक आरोप पत्र में आरोपित आरोप के अनुसार दिनांक 1-4-2000 से 31-5-2000 तक समिति सदस्यों से मु० 183598.00 रु. की ऋण वसूली कर सदस्य खातों में पृविष्टि कर/करा कर धनराशि बैंक शाखा में समिति के ऋण खाता में जमा न करके अपहरण करने तथा दिनांक 1-4-2000 से 31-5-2000 तक की कैशबुक, रसीदबुक, बाऊचर पत्रावली किताब कार्यवाही आदि महत्वपूर्ण अभिलेख चार्ज में न सौंपने का दोषी पाया।
आरोप संख्या
गबन अपहरण की राशि
र्दुविनियोग/ग०वि०अ० की राशि
विवरण
4000.50
-
दिनाँक 10-12-1994 को मु. 13720. 46 रु. अवशेष तहबील के स्थान पर मु. 9719.96 रु. अवशेष तहबील अंकित कर मु. 4000.50 रू. का अपहरण करने के दोषी
98.00
-
दिनांक 29-1-95 को अवशेष तहबील मु. 7069.00 रु. के स्थान पर मु. 6971.00 रू. अंकित कर मु. 98.00 रु. अपहरण के दोषी।
-
399.00
दिनांक 10-2-95 में अनियमित यात्रा भत्ता भुगतान प्राप्त कर व 139.00 रु. ब्याज की हानि पुहंचाने के दोषी।
1768.00
-
दिनांक 31-3-1995 को खार बिक्री नगद की धनराशि 1-4-1995 के प्रारम्भिक अवशेष में न पकड कर और न ही बैंक जमा कर अपहरण के दोषी।
-
दिनांक 18-05-1995 को कैशबुक के सायर खार्च में तहबील कम निकाल कर अपहरण।
3600.00
-
दिनाँक 6-11-95 में कैशबुक में अवशेष रोकड कम दर्शाकर अपहरण।
600.00
-
दिनाँक 5-12-1995 में कैशबुक में अवशेष रोकड़ कम दर्शाकर अपहरण।
-
89.00
अनियमित व्यय कर समिति को ब्याज की हानि पुहंचाने के दोषी।
40784.00
-
दिनाँक 30-5-2000 को निलंबन पश्चात 31-5-2000 से गम्भीर रूप से हृदयरोग से पीड़ित होते हुए दिनांक 2-6-2000 को यू.पी.एस.एस. मेरठ से उपभोक्ता सामान लाना स्वीकार किया जाना तथा इसी प्रकार दिनाँक 3-7-2000 को उपभोक्ता सामान लाकर अपहरण करने के दोषी।
-
-
करौरा समिति की 1-4-2000 से दिनाँक 31-5-2000 तक की कैशबुक, रसीदबुक, बाऊचर पत्रावली, कार्यवाही रजिस्टर आदि महत्वपूर्म अभिलेख चार्ज में न सौंपने के दोषी।
-
34208.00
दिनांक 26-11-98 में प्राप्त 98 कट्टा गेहूं बीज प्राप्त कर स्टाक में पकड़ने के पश्चात दिनाँक 27-11-1998 से अनाधिकृत रूप से अवकाश पर चले जाने तथा गेहूँ बीज क्षतिग्रस्त हो जाने के लिए पूर्ण रूप से उत्तरदायी।
19274.43
-
20563.00
13395.00
12212.00
शिकारपुर समिति के उर्वरक व्यसाय में अपहरण असमायोजित बैंकों की धनराशि जो बकायादार सदस्यों को ऋण वितरण करने के कारण बैंक में समायोजित नहीं हो सके, के लिए दोषी।
असमायोजित बैंकों के विरूद्ध वसूली ऋण वसूली राशि समिति के कैश एण्ड कैरी खाता में जमा न कर अन्य मदों में विभागीय निर्देशों के विपरीत जमा करने के दोषी।
नगद उर्वरक बिक्री की धनराशि को समिति के कैश एण्ड कैरी खाता में जमा न कर अन्य मदों में सीधे कैशबुक से नगद व्यय करने के दोषी।
7701.15
3770.70
5235.00
-
-
-
शिकारपुर समिति से स्थानान्तरण पश्चात कैशबुक के अनुसार अवशेष रोकड शेष प्रतिस्थानी सजिव को चार्ज में न सौंप कर अपहरण रोकड शेष कम निकाल कर एवं प्रारम्भिक रोकड में न जोडकर अपहरण।
समिति आकिक को 3 माह अप्रैल 97 से जून 97 तक कैशबुक के अनुसार दो बार नकद वेतन भुगतान दर्शाकर अपहरण।
योग
86931.78
80866.00
183598.00
-
अनुपूरक आरोप पत्र में आरोपित आरोप के अनुसार समिति में 1-4-2000 से 31-5-2000 तक सदस्यों को रसीद निर्गत कर ऋण वसूली की धनराशि को सदस्यों के खातों में पृविष्टि कर/कराकर बैंक जमा न करके अपहरण के दोषी
उक्त के अतिरिक्त श्री रमेश चन्द्र गुप्ता के विरूद्ध साधन सहकारी समिति लि० करौरा के प्ररण में मु० 220991.00 रू. गबन/अपहरण करने तथा दिनांक 1-4-2000 से 31-5-2000 तक की कैशबुक, रसीदबुक, बाऊचर पत्रावली, किताब कार्यवाही, पी०डी०एस० व्यवसाय एवं गेहूँ खरीद से सम्बन्धित अभिलेख चार्ज में न सौंपकर खुर्द बुर्द करने का मु.अ.सं. 163/2002 अन्तर्गत धारा 409 पंजीकृत है, जिसकी विवेचनाधिकारी, विशेष अनुसंझान शाखा सह- मेरठ द्वारा विवेचना उपरान्त प्रकरण माननीय अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट, तृतीय मेरठ के न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है तथा थाना शिकारपुर में मु.अ.सं. 319/02 अन्तर्गत धारा 409 मु. 35981.00 रु. गबन/अपहरण करने की प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज है, जिसकी पुलिस विवेचना उपरान्त प्रकरण माननीय जनपद न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है।
श्रीगुप्ता के विरूद्ध उ.प्र. सहकारी समति अधिनियम 1965 की धारा 68(2) के अन्तर्गत जिला सहायक निबंधक, सहकारी समितियाँ, उ.प्र. बुलन्दशहर द्वारा मु. 201199.95 रु. मय 12 प्रतिशत ब्याज की डिक्री अधिभार आदेश पारित किया जा चुका है।
अतः कमेटी द्वारा सम्यक विचार विमर्श उपरान्त सर्वसम्मति से श्री रमेश चन्द्र गुप्ता, सेवाच्युत कैडर सचिव जो माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के आदेश दिनांक 26-7-2010 के अनुपालन में निलम्न की स्थिति में हैं तथा जो उ.प्र. प्रार. कृषि सहकारी ऋण समिति केन्द्रीयत सेवा विनियमावली 1976 के नियम संख्या 27(ए) के अन्तर्गत अपनी 58 वर्ष अधिवर्षता आयु दिनाँक 31-12-2010 को पूर्ण कर चुके हैं, के सम्बन्ध में जिला प्रशासनिक कमेटी की बैठक दिनाँक 23-5-2002 व 30-05-2006 में लिए गए निर्णय को सही मानते हुए सेवाच्युत किए जाने का निर्णय लिया गया।
अतः जिला प्रशासनिक कमेटी की बैठक दिनाँक 08-01-2011 में लिए गए निर्णय के अऩुपालन में श्री रमेश चन्द्र गुप्ता, निलम्बित सचिव को कैडर सचिव पद की चाकरी से सेवाच्युत किया जाता है। "
10. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition.
11. Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that directions passed in the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by this Court was not complied with as well as inquiry was continued even after petitioner has attained age of superannuation, which was legally impermissible.
12. Learned counsel has further submitted that despite various communications, relevant documents were not provided, as such, direction of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 qua to supply documents was also not followed. The petitioner has not committed any financial embezzlement, therefore, charges were not proved on basis of evidence available. Otherwise also, on proved charges, punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
13. Per contra, S/Sri Abhishek Mishra and Mahesh Narain Mishra, learned counsel for respondents have supported the impugned order and submitted that this Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 has granted liberty to put the petitioner under suspension and after providing charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet and to grant liberty to access documents and after submission of reply, disciplinary proceedings may be concluded. Said directions were strictly followed. A copy of both charge sheets were supplied and reply was sought, however, despite all papers were given in the earlier round of proceedings, petitioner unnecessarily submitted repeated applications only to delay the proceedings. Explanation submitted was found unsatisfactory and on basis of material, charges of embezzlement were proved and punishment of dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate.
14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
15. It is well settled that in normal circumstances, Courts are slow in causing interference in the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings. For reference relevant part of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 is mentioned hereinafter:
"23.The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution') in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v.S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench stated:
'7.... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant:it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.'
24. The above was reiterated by a Bench of equal strength in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 249. Three learned Judges of this Court stated as under in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557:
'25. In State Bank of India v. S.K. Sharma,(1996) 3 SCC 364, two learned Judges of this Court held:
'28. The decisions cited above make one thing clear, viz., principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to any hard and fast formulae. As said in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk [[1949] 1 All ER 109 : 65 TLR 225] way back in 1949, these principles cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Their applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272]) The objective is to ensure a fair hearing, a fair deal, to the person whose rights are going to be affected. (See A.K. Roy v. Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 271:1982 SCC (Cri) 152] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664].) As pointed out by this Court in A.K. Kraipakv. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262], the dividing line between quasi-judicial function and administrative function (affecting the rights of a party) has become quite thin and almost indistinguishable -- a fact also emphasised by House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [[1984] 3 All ER 935 : [1984] 3 WLR 1174 : [1985] A.C. 374, HL] where the principles of natural justice and a fair hearing were treated as synonymous. Whichever the case, it is from the standpoint of fair hearing -- applying the test of prejudice, as it may be called -- that any and every complaint of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem should be examined. Indeed, there may be situations where observance of the requirement of prior notice/hearing may defeat the very proceeding -- which may result in grave prejudice to public interest. It is for this reason that the rule of post-decisional hearing as a sufficient compliance with natural justice was evolved in some of the cases, e.g., Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 465]. There may also be cases where the public interest or the interests of the security of State or other similar considerations may make it inadvisable to observe the rule of audi alteram partem altogether [as in the case of situations contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2)] or to disclose the material on which a particular action is being taken. There may indeed be any number of varying situations which it is not possible for anyone to foresee. In our respectful opinion, the principles emerging from the decided cases can be stated in the following terms in relation to the disciplinary orders and enquiries : a distinction ought to be made between violation of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, as such and violation of a facet of the said principle. In other words, distinction is between "no notice"/"no hearing" and "no adequate hearing" or to put it in different words, "no opportunity" and "no adequate opportunity". To illustrate -- take a case where the person is dismissed from service without hearing him altogether (as in Ridge v. Baldwin [[1964] A.C. 40 : [1963] 2 All ER 66 : [1963] 2 WLR 935]). It would be a case falling under the first category and the order of dismissal would be invalid -- or void, if one chooses to use that expression (Calvin v. Carr [[1980] A.C. 574 : [1979] 2 All ER 440 : [1979] 2 WLR 755, PC]). But where the person is dismissed from service, say, without supplying him a copy of the enquiry officer's report (Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]) or without affording him a due opportunity of cross-examining a witness (K.L. Tripathi [(1984) 1 SCC 43 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 62]) it would be a case falling in the latter category -- violation of a facet of the said rule of natural justice -- in which case, the validity of the order has to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether, all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a fair hearing. It would not be correct -- in the light of the above decisions to say that for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating such facet, the order passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further enquiry. In our opinion, the approach and test adopted in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] should govern all cases where the complaint is not that there was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity and no hearing) but one of not affording a proper hearing (i.e., adequate or a full hearing) or of violation of a procedural rule or requirement governing the enquiry; the complaint should be examined on the touchstone of prejudice as aforesaid."
16. This Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 has granted liberty to respondents to put the petitioner under suspension and after giving copy of both charge sheets and after providing access to documents, on basis of reply filed, the disciplinary proceedings may be concluded.
17. On the basis of record, it is not much disputed that copy of charge sheets were supplied and reply was sought. So far as access to documents is concerned, I have carefully perused the record and despite copy of documents were already given in earlier proceedings, the petitioner in order to linger on the proceedings has filed repeated applications to supply documents. He was granted opportunity to access the documents, however, he does not appear.
18. I have also perused the proposal adopted by Committee which is placed along with supplementary counter affidavit wherein all the allegations were dealt in detail as well as that despite petitioner was called to appear in person to access documents and informed by the registered post, however, it is specifically noted that petitioner has not appeared.
19. Court also takes note that in regard to allegations of embezzlement, specific finding was returned in resolution so adopted and that petitioner has not deposited money on many occasions and due to misconduct of petitioner, respondents have suffered financial loss, a very serious misconduct. (See State Bank of India vs. Naveen Kumar Sinha, 2024 INSC 874)
20. It is also well settled that inquiry initiated before retirement may continue even after retirement of delinquent as well as in present case, a liberty was granted by the Court vide an order passed in earlier round of litigation, money collected from Members after issuing receipts was not deposited. Lesser money was shown in account balance. The period of embezzlement runs for many years. Details of embezzlement are mentioned in earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner has submitted vague averments which are not sufficient to contradict the findings.
21. In aforesaid circumstances and taking note of State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh (supra), since there is no procedural error in the process of disciplinary proceedings, principles of natural justice were followed, direction given vide order dated 26.07.2010 passed by this Court were also followed as well as that the petitioner has not appeared despite repeated opportunities to access the documents as well as specific reasons are assigned in the proposal adopted in regard to various acts of embezzlement, therefore, no circumstances exist to interfere with the impugned order as well as Court also takes note that allegations are of financial embezzlement which has caused huge financial loss to respondents, therefore, punishment of dismissal from service is also not shockingly disproportionate.
22. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- July 15, 2025
N. Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
