FATEHVEER SINGH RAGHAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Advocate for respondents.

(2.) Writ petition is directed against order dated 01.07.2004 passed by Deputy Director (Administration), Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad holding petitioner guilty of misconduct of charges levelled vide charge sheet (Annexure-5 to writ petition) and directing for recovery of Rs. 68,477/- and also awarding 'Censure'. Impugned order of punishment also says that for the period of suspension, whether petitioner is entitled for full salary or not, separate proceedings under Fundamental Rule 54 shall be initiated.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that even if the allegations levelled against petitioner are taken to be true, same do not amount to a 'misconduct' inasmuch as if there were lesser transactions in Mandi Samiti, petitioner could have collected Mandi fee only on those transactions and hence the target, if fixed by Mandi Parishad is not achieved, for that petitioner cannot be held responsible since he has no duty of encouraging farmers to visit market and enter into transactions so as to augment Mandi fee. He is not a sale promoter. The allegation is not that there were certain transactions in the market over which Mandi fee was payable but petitioner did not collect but what the allegation is, that petitioner could not achieve target.