Suresh Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Sharma, J

The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as an Accountant in the office of the District Education Officer. By virtue of the impugned order under challenge dated 25.09.2012, a departmental enquiry has been contemplated to be proceeded with against him for a set of allegations of making wrongful payment of salary to one Mr. Satya Bahar for a period of 01.06.2000 to 06.12.2007 amounting to Rs.8,80,800/-. At the behest of Satya Bahar there had been an independent proceeding, which was agitated before the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 454 of 2005 'Satya Bahar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'.

In the Writ Petition the case of Satya Bahar was that in the Institution of respondent no. 5 there occurred short term vacancies, which were advertised on 09.10.1996 in which Satya Bahar applied in the selection process and the Selection Committee decision was placed before the committee of management for appointment and for acceptance of the recommendations made thereto. The case of Satya Bahar was that on the basis of the recommendation it was resolved to appoint Satya Bahar on ad hoc LT grade teacher. Though the entire service of Satya Bahar records of the ad hoc appointment was sent to the District Inspector of Schools and he had joined the duty w.e.f. 01.11.1996, it is the case of Satya Bahar that he was working continuously but salary was not paid to him. He filed a Writ Petition No. 2094/2017 before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 17.01.1997 to consider the representation. Consequent thereto the representation submitted by the petitioner was not decided by the respondent, hence, he filed another Writ Petition No. 3126/2001, which was decided by the order dated 31.12.2003 and, consequently, the respondent no. 2 passed an order on 17.05.2004, whereby, declined to appoint the petitioner and holding thereof that his appointment was not in conformity with law, hence, he would not be entitled for any salary. This Writ Petition No. 454/2005 filed by Satya Bahar was decided by the Single Judge of this Court by the judgment dated 01.03.2006 holding as under:

"It is admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was duly selected by the Selection Committee and he was recommended for appointment on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher. He has been working in the college since 1.11.1996 and as such he is entitled to get salary of the post on which he is working.

In view of the above, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is directed to pass appropriate orders regarding payment of salary to the petitioner admissible to the L.T. Grade Teachers from 1.11.1996.

This order was challenged by the State in Special Appeal No. 151/2006 'State of Uttarakhand & Others vs. Satya Bahar and Another'. The same was disposed of by the Division Bench with the following terms:

"This case has left a bad taste in out mount, inasmuch as, the respondent Satya Bahar having continuously rendered service with effect from 01.11.1996, he was not paid his wages. He filed two writ petitions, one in 1997 and the second in 2001, although his selection at the hands of the college had been conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, and although, no objection to the same had been raised by the District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar, after the same was brought to his notice as far back as on 23.10.1996. On both occasions, when he approached the High Court (first at Allahabad and then at Nainital) he sought wages on account of the services rendered. Inspite of the fact, that his claim was allowed, wages have still not been paid to him. During the course of the hearing of the present appeal, we are of the view, that the submissions advanced at the hands of the appellants, were merely in the nature of obstacles stumbling blocks, raised at the hands of the appellants, without any justification. One could have understood, if the appellants had found that the process of selection adopted by the management of the college was unfair. Merely on technical objections the appellants have denied salary/wages, to an employee engaged merely on a short term ad hoc basis, can not be appreciated. We have found no infirmity in the selection process, or the fairness thereof, in the adjudication of the present appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that besides requiring the appellants to disburse wages to the respondent Satya Bahar forthwith, exemplary costs deserve to be imposed on the appellants. We are satisfied that the appellants should pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand). The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellants with the High Court Bar Association of Uttarakhand. The receipt of costs deposited shall be placed on the record of this case within one month from today, failing which, the instant Special Appeal shall be re-listed for motion hearing, for the recovery of costs. The entire wages/salary payable to the respondent Satya Bahar shall be positively disbursed to him within one month of the receipt of a certified copy of this order."

The said judgment stood affirmed.

Petitioner in defense submits that after the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.12.2009 when the amount was not paid Satya Bahar filed an application on 02.09.2011 before the Committee of Management for compliance of the directions of the High Court, whereby, a reference was made with District Education Officer, Haridwar, vide letter dated 16.01.2010 has ordered the payment of salary to the Institution but the principal of Institution has not recommended for its payment. Hence, the on request of Satya Bahar dated 02.09.2011 the Principal wrote to the District Education Officer on 13.12.2011, whereby, direction was sought from District Education Officer with regards to the payment of salary in compliance of the judgment.

It was after the receipt of the letter dated 13.09.2011 the District Education Officer marked the said letter to the petitioner with an endorsement to the effect that since the matter pertains to the compliance of the Court's order necessary action may be taken in that regard.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that his action was bonafide because the Finance Officer of the School Education also passed an order on 22.09.2011 directing the manager of the Institution dated 13.09.2011 to make the payment in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Satya Bahar's case. Ultimately, when on 08.10.2011 the Manager send the bills along with his recommendation the petitioner, being in capacity of an Accountant considering the sanction and approval by the Finance Officer School Education for making the arrears and allocating the budget for the said purpose, is said to have recommended to make the payment. Hence, the communication dated 09.03.2012 issued by the Finance Officer stating that the petitioner without informing the Finance Officer could not have made recommendations for payment, which is beyond his jurisdiction and, thus, the impugned action has been taken against the petitioner by issuance of the order for conducting enquiry.

Ultimately it culminated after the dismissal of the SLP of the State against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.12.2009.

In support of his contention in defense was that learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatsoever he has taken it was not an action at his own decision or wisdom, rather he has acted on the directions issued by his superiors and, hence, he may not be made liable for the said allegation against which the enquiry is proposed to be conducted against him by the impugned order dated 25.09.2012.

Be that as it may, when the Writ Petition was preferred by Mr. Satya Bahar, who was also facing the enquiry based on the order dated 25.09.2012, in all probability, an enquiry must have proceeded with and must have been given final shape to it, but, considering the fact that in the connected Writ Petition of Mr. Satya Bahar it has come on record that the alleged financial loss, which the department is said to have suffered on the ground of wrongful payment of salary for the period to the petitioner, Satya Bahar of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1474 of 2012 'Satya Bahar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'. The said loss has been made good by him by remitting back the amount by paying it through bank drafts dated 10.03.2012 for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.4,80,800/- by bank draft dated 12.03.2012.

Considering the aforesaid totality of facts and also the stand taken by the petitioner in the Writ Petition based on the various communications made by his superiors to act as per their directives, he submits that he may not be made responsible for the allegations referred in the impugned order as he has been made as an escape goat. Considering the aforesaid facts and considering the judgment, which has been rendered today in the case of Satya Bahar in Writ Petition No. 1474 of 2012, this Writ Petition would too stands disposed of with the direction that in an event if the enquiry based on the impugned order dated 25.09.2012 has not been completed the same would be completed within a period of two months from today and during the course of enquiry it will be open for the petitioner to take all the stand and defense, which he has agitated in the Writ Petition to show his innocence and non-involvement in the set of allegations leveled against Satya Bahar.

Subject to the above observations, Writ Petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.