Chandra Bhan Pratap Singh vs Executive Engineer, Tube-Well Division and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenged the order dated 29.4.2002, passed by Respondent No. 1, a cpoy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, whereby the Petitioner after having been found guilty of the charges of mis-appropriation/embezzlement of amount of different Yojnas of the Government, thereby an amount of Rs. 4,77,325 was directed to be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner, which was payable from his salary from the month of June, 2002, onwards and further no salary will be paid to him during the period of suspension.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that this order preceded with the order of suspension and no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted before passing of the aforesaid order of suspension. This statement of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is incorrect, as would be clear from the recital of the order impugned in the present writ petition, wherein it has been categorically stated that the enquiry officer, who was deputed by the appointing authority, has issued the charge-sheet to the Petitioner and afforded him opportunity and after conducting the enquiry submitted the enquiry report. It is after the preliminary enquiry, the Petitioner was suspended in compliance of the order dated 5th January, 2001, passed by District Magistrate, Deoria. The enquiry report was supplied to Zila Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoria, whereby Petitioner was asked to show cause by letter dated 15th January, 2002, which has been replied to by the Petitioner by his letter dated 19th February, 2002, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

In this view of the factual position, the argument advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no enquiry was conducted or that the Petitioner has not been afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before he was subjected to recovery of the amount by the impugned order is untenable and deserves to be rejected. No other point was argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Shukla (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1377 , wherein it has been stated that "the appointing authority is under mandatory obligation to record at least tentative reasons for its disagreement and serve it on delinquent employee to give an opportunity to show cause against it." From the facts stated above, since in the present case there is no such controversy that the appointing authority has disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer, which is laid down in the aforesaid decision, the facts of this case are not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. The another decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another, ,wherein on the facts of the aforesaid case the Supreme Court has held that "the disciplinary authority cannot impose the penalty of major or minor in nature relying upon the material, which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent before imposing the penalty." In view of the facts stated above, as that of the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid case also do not apply to the facts of the present case.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.