STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SANWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 -Ramesh Chandra Sanwal has been working on the post of Noter and Drafter at Jamrani Dam, Construction Division III, Damuan Dhoonga, Haldwani and he was also entrusted with the work of Cashier and was handling the cash work. On 01 -08 -1980, the Respondent No. 1 had gone to Bank to draw the salary amounting to Rs. 12,010.15 and the said money was lost. The Respondent No. 1 lodged a first information report in this regard. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 was charge sheeted and was placed under suspension but he was reinstated subsequently. Vide order dated 08 -02 -1982, the Respondent No. 1 was punished by the Superintending Engineer, Jamrani Dam, Construction Circle, Haldwani, District Nainital. It was ordered that the Respondent No. 1 was although reinstated but should not be paid salary of the suspension period and a recovery of Rs. 12,010.15 be done from him. It was also directed that 25% of the pay would be deducted from the salary of Respondent No. 1 in every month. The Respondent No. 1 was also debarred for promotion for two years.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal after hearing the parties has held that as there was no prior notice to Respondent No. 1 before passing the order dated 08 -02 -1982, the said order of withholding the remaining allowance of the suspension period was in violation of the Fundamental Rule 54. So far as the punishment awarded to the Respondent No. 1 debarring him from promotion for two years, it was held by the Tribunal that the disciplinary authority can award only punishment which is provided in S.S.R.A.R. wherein there is no punishment like debarring him from promotion for two years, as such, this type of punishment cannot be awarded. It was further held that the disciplinary authority could be the Additional Chief Engineer in the case of Respondent No. 1 who confirmed him; the order of punishment has been passed by the authority Superintending Engineer who is subordinate in rank and as such, the Superintending Engineer was not the competent authority to punish the Respondent No. 1. It was further held that the Respondent No. 1 was deprived of his rightful claim of promotion by way of malice and arbitrary manner of action of the Executive Engineer. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioners -department have filed the present writ petition before this Court.