Roop Narain Sonkar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Petitioner was the Sub Registrar, Dehradun in the year 1997. By an order dated 2nd July 1997, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Inspector-General, Registration. That promotion required transfer of the petitioner to Pilibhit. Petitioner joined the said post and at the same time approached the High Court at Allahabad seeking interference with the order of promotion dated 2nd July 1997. The order was stayed and later on the same was directed to continue. As a result, the petitioner returned to his post of Sub Registrar, Dehradun. With effect from 9th November 2000, the State of Uttar Pradesh stood bifurcated. On 30th November 2000, the Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, State of Uttar Pradesh expressed an opinion to the effect that since the petitioner did not accept his promotion, the same demonstrates that he wanted to remain in his earlier post for the purpose of making unlawful gains, which gains are attached to the post as was being held by him. In the opinion, the following, translated in English, was expressed:

The tendency of foregoing their promotion, by hook or by crook, on the post of Assistant Inspector General, Registration is increasing day-by-day in almost all the Sub Registrars working in the Department of Stamp and Registration. The second reason is that the post of Sub Registrar is regarded as profitable post and the corrupt officers want to remain on the said post by giving up their promotions. Such type of tendency is encouraging financial irregularities and corruption. It is very necessary to keep a rein on such an evil-inclination. Mr. Sonkar has also not declared his movable and immovable property.

Resolution- As narrated above, it is hereby recommended by the Department to get the movable and immovable property of Mr. Roop Narain Sonkar investigated by the Vigilance Department.

The Secretary concerned, therefore, held out for no just reason that the holders of the posts of Sub Registrar are habituated in making unlawful gains. Be that as it may, the above opinion was expressed inasmuch as the petitioner obtained a stay from the High Court at Allahabad of his promotion-cum-transfer order. The insinuation was that the petitioner was making unlawful gain, while holding the post of Sub Registrar, Dehradun. This opinion is unfortunate. However, since the Principal Secretary to the State of Uttar Pradesh expressed such an opinion, the State of Uttarakhand started vigilance proceedings against the petitioner, who has now been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The vigilance case is aimed at ascertainment of disproportionate assets, if any, in the hands of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that since 30th November 2000 the vigilance department has not yet been able to conclude, whether or not the petitioner is in possession of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income. The said state of affair demonstrates the efficiency of the vigilance department of the State of Uttarakhand. In terms of our earlier order, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand has submitted that it will take some more time to complete the investigation.

Inasmuch as, the petitioner, for some reason or the other, did not want to be posted out from Dehradun, and accordingly, did not accept his promotion order and for that matter approached the High Court of Allahabad and obtained a stay from the said Court of his promotion-cum-transfer order, it was unjust and inappropriate on the part of the Principal Secretary to the State of Uttar Pradesh to make such a comment in the form of an opinion, and it is equally unfortunate on the part of the State of Uttarakhand to pursue the matter and that too in the way not known in the common parlance. According to the State of Uttarakhand, in August 2008, an investigating officer was appointed to inquire into, whether the petitioner is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources. More than two years have since been passed but the investigation is still not complete. That state of affair further demonstrates the total apathy on the part of the State of Uttarakhand in the matter of discharging its duties towards its own employees. The petitioner is being harassed since 30th November 2000, because the petitioner had taken re-course to law as was available to him by approaching the High Court at Allahabad. We feel, by reason of the conduct on the part of State of Uttarakhand, as depicted above, there seems to be no substance in the contentions contained in the opinion of the Principal Secretary to the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the same should not be deemed to be conclusive. The petitioner, in the name of vigilance investigation, as it appears, is being unnecessarily harassed and all his prospects are being doomed on the basis of pendency of such investigation.

Having formed such opinion, we are of the view that the investigation may not result in any adverse finding against the petitioner. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by directing that pendency of the vigilance investigation against the petitioner, shall not in any way affect any of the service benefits of the petitioner, including promotion to which he is otherwise entitled.