Allahabad High Court

Shiv Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73472
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6190 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishwarya Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Utkarsh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Dube, Advocate for Respondents-2 to 5.

2. Petitioner, an Incharge Headmaster, has suffered an inquiry on various allegations, however, main allegation was that he without any permission of concerned respondent, put the foodgrains of mid-day meal scheme at the second house of Manager of Committee of Management of concerned School without even his consent.

3. Aforesaid fact was found true in inspection and petitioner has not come forward to give any reply probably on ground that admittedly at the time of inspection he was at Police Station to cooperate in an inquiry. After completion of inquiry punishment order was passed on 16.12.2024 whereby punishment of stoppage of one financial increment was passed as well as petitioner was transferred to another School.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted an explanation which has specifically recorded in inquiry report also that since earlier there were instances of theft in School premises, therefore, it was not safe to keep said foodgrains within School premises and, therefore, it was kept at the second house of Manager of Committee of Management and it remained there for about one month. There is no complaint that said foodgrains were stolen or misused by petitioner. Even the owner of house has not made any complaint against petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that admittedly at the time of inspection petitioner was at Police Station and during inquiry as well as departmental proceeding he submitted a detail reply. Learned counsel refers the reply to Charge No. 6 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:

"???? ????? 6 ?? ?????- ???? ????? 6 ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?????????????? ?????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? 04.07.2024 ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? 15.07.2024 ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? 22 ????? ?? ????????? ????? ???????? ??????? ?? 80 ?? 85 ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????????? ????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???

???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? 22.07.2024 ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? / ???????????? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????????????? ?? ?????? 27.11.2018, 28.11.2018, 06.09.2019, 05.10.2019, 15.05.2024 ??? 28.05.2024 ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ?????? 07.02.2023 ??? 03.04.2024 ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???, ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ???"

6. Learned counsel submits that in aforesaid circumstances charge was never proved even at the anvil of preponderance of probability as well as petitioner has suffered an illegal punishment order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported impugned order and submits that since without permission of higher authorities foodgrains were kept outside the School premises, it was considered to be dereliction of duty. However, he is not able to dispute that there is a probable explanation for keeping the said foodgrains outside of School premises since earlier there were instances of theft. Learned counsel also submits that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to interfere with findings arrived in a departmental proceeding.

8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material available on record.

9. It is well settled that in normal circumstances a writ Court may not interfere in departmental proceedings and punishment order, except where due procedure was not followed or principles of natural justice were not adhered to or on basis of material an error of law was committed or punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. Reference be made of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592.

10. As referred above, principles of natural justice were substantially followed, therefore, there is no procedural error in inquiry.

11. I have considered the submission with regard to explanation submitted by petitioner to relevant Charge No. 6 that there was a reason to keep foodgrains outside the School premises at the second house of Manager of Committee of Management of concerned School, who has never raised any objection to it though he denied that no room was given to petitioner on rent.

12. Aforesaid act may be considered to be an act contrary to procedure prescribed for keeping foodgrains in the store of School, however, concerned respondent has failed to notice that earlier there were various instances of theft at School premises, therefore, to avoid such incident and to keep foodgrains safe, petitioner has taken steps to keep it outside the premises of School at a safe place. In entire proceeding there is no allegation that foodgrains were stolen or misused or it was used other than the purpose of mid-day meal.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a case where there is an error of law since probable explanation given by petitioner was not considered. Accordingly a case of interference is made out.

14. In view of above, impugned order dated 16.12.2024 it set aside to the extent of punishment of stoppage of one annual increment. However, Court finds that petitioner was not careful so much as that he has never informed concerned respondent that foodgrains were kept outside School premises since it can be used for otherwise purposes. Therefore, Court is not interfering with impugned order to the extent of order of transfer. However, it is relaxed to the extent that it would be only for one year.

15. With aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 7.5.2025