KUNWAR SINGH DANU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Government High School, Baghar, Bageshwar in the year 1990. The petitioner applied for a housing loan and was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards housing loan in the year 1990. It is alleged that the petitioner manipulated the sanctioned order and instead of withdrawing a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - was withdrawn. When the correct facts were found out, the District Inspector of Schools issued an order dated 06.11.1999 directing the recovery of Rs. 3.50 lacs in 270 monthly instalments of Rs. 1500/ - from February, 2000 onwards. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition No. 1952 (S/S) of 2001 in which an interim order dated 18.11.1999 was passed staying the recovery of the entire amount. The Court, however, directed that deduction @ Rs. 1500/ - per month will be made from the salary of the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid mis -demeanour, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 31.12.1999. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 1201 of 2000 questioning the suspension order which was dismissed by an order dated 12th January, 2000. The Court, while dismissing the writ petition, directed the authority to complete the inquiry within three months. Based on the aforesaid order, the petitioner was chargesheeted and the inquiry was completed and the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment dated 11.11.2000. By the said order, the suspension order was revoked. It was found that the petitioner had wrongly taken a loan of 3.50 lacs instead of taking a loan of Rs. 50,000/ - and, consequently, directed that the recovery of the amount would be made by a deduction of Rs. 1500/ - per month from the salary of the petitioner.

(2.) BEFORE the order of punishment could be passed, a criminal complaint dated 10th June, 2000 was also lodged by the employers before the police station with regard to the aforesaid charge of Rs. 3.50 lacs as well as other charges. Based on the investigation made by the police authority, the petitioner was arrested on 8th July, 2001 and detained in jail for more than 48 hours, as a result of which, the petitioner was again suspended by an order dated 13th July, 2001. The employers, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 21.01.2001 holding that the petitioner would continue to remain under suspension and that the final order would be passed after the disposal of the criminal case and that the recovery would also be made after the orders of the criminal court was passed.

(3.) IT may be stated here that against the recovery order issued by the District Inspector of School, the petitioner had filed writ petition No. 1952 of 2001 in which an interim order was passed on 18.11.1999. The writ court made the interim order absolute by its order dated 20th March, 2006 and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.