PARAM LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29 -8 -2000 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made to command the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner came in the service of the U.P. Public Works Department (in short PWD) in the year 1964 as Overseer which was subsequently re -named as Junior Engineer. In due course of time, the petitioner got his promotion as Assistant Engineer in the year 1981 and thereafter, as Executive Engineer in the year 1994. While, the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in the Constructions Division, Pokhri, District Chamoli, there were three Assistant Engineers under him including one Mahesh Chandra. The petitioner was Incharge of supervision of the amount of money so allocated and expenditure incurred by the different Assistant Engineers for the works and in discharge of the aforesaid duty, the petitioner allocated and sanctioned different amounts to different Assistant Engineers. An amount of Rs. 11,00,000 was sanctioned to Mahesh Chandra -Assistant Engineer, for distribution of wages to the workers and compensation to be paid to the farmers for the works done under his supervision in the department. The Assistant Engineer to whom the amount was sanctioned was required to submit the accounts and details of expenditure/disbursement to the petitioner upon which the petitioner was to make proper adjustment in the records of the department, which report was sent to the higher authorities. According to petitioner, inspite of repeated letters written to Mahesh Chandra, Assistant Engineer, he did not submit the details of expenditure/disbursement in respect to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,00,000. On account of inaction on the part of Mahesh Chandra, the petitioner got a First Information Report lodged against Mahesh Chandra on 16 -8 -1997 and thereafter, on 28 -8 -1997, details were submitted. Upon receiving the details of expenditure/disbursement of the amount from Mahesh Chandra, Assistant Engineer, the petitioner informed the police official and the Superintending Engineer regarding receipt of the details as was to be submitted by Mahesh Chandra. On 29 -8 -1997 itself, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Revenue Officials informing the aforesaid situation, on account of which delay was occasioned in submitting the details of adjustment in respect of the amount so allocated by the petitioner, and finding it to be an irregularity on the part of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by the order dated 22 -10 -1997. When the order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner in this Court vide Writ Petition No. 40325 of 1997, this Court finally disposed of the writ petition by giving direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of suspension within three weeks from the date of serving the representation alongwith copy of the order. It is stated that on 9 -2 -1998, the petitioner was served with a copy of the charge -sheet dated 20 -1 -1998 to which the petitioner submitted a detail reply. The State Government had appointed the Chief Engineer (Garhwal Region), PWD, Pauri as the Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, on 12 -12 -1998, an enquiry report was submitted in which the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. It appears that by the time, a decision in the light of the enquiry report as submitted could be taken, the petitioner retired on 28 -2 -1999. It is thereafter on 1 -4 -1999, that the petitioner was served with a notice to the effect that the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer and the petitioner was required to submit his objection. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 9 -4 -1999 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). After submission of reply by the petitioner, the State Government passed an order addressed to the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission seeking opinion for imposing the punishment of deduction of 10% of the pension as payable to the petitioner and it is after the opinion of the U.P. Public Service Commission, that the impugned order dated 29 -8 -2000 was passed against which the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that action on the part of the respondent No. 1 in passing the order dated 29 -8 -2000 is clearly illegal and arbitrary. It has been pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has totally exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and thus without any justification for differing with the conclusion as arrived at by the enquiry officer, the impugned punishment order has been given. It has been submitted that no reason whatsoever has been given for differing with the findings given by the enquiry officer. It has been further submitted that the charge against the petitioner was the delay in submitting the details in respect of the expenditure/disbursement of the amount allocated to the Assistant Engineer and secondly that without there being adjustment of one amount which was allocated, he sanctioned another amount. It has been pointed out that the alleged irregularity cannot be attributed to the petitioner in view of the fact that in the compelling circumstances, for disbursement of the wages to the workers and the farmers, the amount was necessary to be allocated and for giving timely information to the higher authorities, petitioner has repeatedly written to the concerned Assistant Engineer and on account of inaction, on his part, the petitioner has lodged First Information Report and it is on receipt of information/details from the Assistant Engineer, with all promptness, that the petitioner has submitted the details and made adjustment as required. In view of this, it has been pointed out that no motive on the part of the petitioner can be attributable and the impugned action against the petitioner is not warranted. Lastly, it has been submitted that neither the quantum of any loss to the Government has been found by the disciplinary authority nor it has been made clear that upto what time and for what amount 10% deduction from the pension will continue and therefore, it is an arbitrary exercise to the great detriment of a retiring employee. For these reasons, it has been prayed that the impugned order of respondent No. 1 be quashed.