Chuda Ram vs State of Uttarakhand

Lok Pal Singh, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs, among others:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.01.2005 (Anneuxre-5) issued by District Magistrate

Champawat and order dated 15.5.2015 (Annexure-11) issued by Commissioner Kumaun Mandal Nainital.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant/sanction the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-

to the petitioner w.e.f 2008 i.e. the date when similarly situated and even junior incumbents to the petitioners were granted the same.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay the arrears of enhanced salary by

fixing salary of petitioner on the grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 2008 to the date of retirement of petitioner i.e. 29.2.2016.

iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to fix the pensionary benefits and other

consequential benefits to the benefits to the petitioner on the grade pay of Rs.4600/-.â€​

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon on 4.6.1979 in the revenue

department. On completion of about 18 years of satisfactory service, he was promoted to the post of Patwari in the year 1998. While the petitioner

was working as Patwari, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.5.2004 by contemplating the departmental inquiry. Subsequent thereto,

the Inquiry Officer issued charge sheet dated 13/14 June 2004 to the petitioner, containing three charges:

i) Petitioner failed to give joining to the newly elected Sarpanch of Van Panchayat Malla Khailkot who was elected on 8.11.2003.

ii) Petitioner failed to take action against the illegal mining conducted by some persons in village Nidil Tok Pancheswar

iii) Petitioner some times remains absent from Patwari Circile Headquarter Jakh and also did not done the work of land record (Bhu-Lekh) within

time.

Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.06.2004. On 02.07.2004, petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Inquiry Officer

partially found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and submitted his report to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate concurred with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer and vide order dated 12.01.2005 imposed the following punishment:

i) That petitioner will not be entitled to salary/other allowances for the period of suspension, except subsistence allowance.

ii) Censure entry in the service book of the petitioner.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was against the provisions of Rule 7(3) of Uttar

Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, inasmuch as the charges were not specific.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that although in the punishment order there is no condition of withholding the promotional grade

pay but even then the respondents have discriminated the petitioner and the similarly situated employees and even juniors to the petitioner were

granted grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 2008 whereas the petitioner’s grade pay was not fixed at Rs.4600/- and he was illegally retained in the

grade pay of Rs.2800/-.

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, wherein it is stated that as per G.O. no.471/(1)2011-3/2008 Dehradun dated

2.04.2011, a government employee is entitled to thebenefit of Ist ACP and promotional pay scale only when he has completed the satisfactory service

of ten years but there was an adverse entry against the petitioner in the year 2004 before he could complete the 10 years service as Patwari, not only

this in the year 2004-05 the petitioner was found guilty of not performing his duties and his conduct was censored and he was awarded a special

adverse entry vide order dated 27/28 Feb/2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Champawat, which adverse entry was duly communicated to the

petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire material available on file.

Insofar as first argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not specific, is

concerned, this argument is untenable. A perusal of the charge-sheet itself would reveal that specific charges were made against the petitioner in the

charge-sheet. As regards another submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated and has not been

given the promotional pay-scale of Rs.4600/-, it has also no substance, as nothing has been brought on record in regard to discrimination. In fact, it is

stated in the counter affidavit that a government employee is entitled to the benefit of promotional pay scale only when he has completed satisfactory

service of ten years. In the case at hand, there was an adverse entry against the petitioner, therefore, he was not granted promotional pay-scale.

The petitioner was placed under suspension on the charges of negligence in duties and has been imposed with a penalty of adverse entry in his

service book/record and denial of salary/other allowances during the period of suspension, except the subsistence allowance.

Petitioner has failed to show any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. The High Court, while exercising power of

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot act as an Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct

errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not

akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that

principle of natural justice has been violated by the respondents. Further, there is no procedural error in holding inquiry nor there is any error

committed by the Inquiry Officer in arriving at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner, are proved. Punishment imposed upon the

petitioner is also not disproportionate to the charges. Rather, the punishment imposed is absolutely in consonance with the nature of misconduct,

committed by the present petitioner.

Â

In the light of aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.