STATE OF U P Vs. SACHCHIDANAND SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Second Appeals arise from two different suits filed by the respondent against the appellant State. He was employed as a Marketing Inspector under the control of Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur Region, upto the 3rd January, 1962, but was on that date posted as an Inspector of Weights and Measures under the control of Controller, Weights and Measures U.P, Lucknow. The relief claimed in two suits was similar. In suit No. 450 of 1967, it was for a declaration that the order passed by the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur Region, dated the 5th May, 1963 for recovery of Rs. 2,297-31 P. be declared illegal, unconstitutional and void ; and that in Suit No. 452 of 1967 it was for a similar declaration that the order dated 13th December, 1965 also passed by the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur Region, for recovery of Rs. 274-66 P. from the plaintiff may be declared to be illegal, unconstitutional and void.

(2.) THE two suits were tried separately, and by separate judgments, but passed on the same day, the trial court dismissed both of them. On appeal, the lower appellate court has, however, decreed both the suits for the declaration claimed, by the two judgments under appeal which have also been passed on the same day.

(3.) HAYING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that these two appeals must succeed. The punishment imposed by the two orders in question was of recovery for loss caused to the Government by the plaintiff's conduct referable to the performance of his duties as a Marketing Inspector whilst under the disciplinary control of the Regional Food Controller. The punishment imposed did not effect the plaintiff's continuation in service as an Inspector of Weights and Measures under the Controller of Weights and Measures. It may, be that the two departments were separate and had separate appointing authorities in relation to the post of Inspector under their respective control, and since the plaintiff continued in service under the same Government without any break, the Controller, Weights and Measures might have, on information placed before him, taken action against the plaintiff for his past conduct in Government service, though under a different appointing authority. But the fact remains that the proper person, to inquire into the charge against the plaintiff and to decide whether the plaintiff should be punished for it and if so what should be the punishment to be imposed, was the Regional Food Controller, inasmuch as the misconduct to which the charge related was committed by the plaintiff whilst he was under the disciplinary control of the Regional Food Controller. If the Regional Food Controller had on inquiry come to the conclusion that mere recovery of the loss caused by the plaintiff's misconduct would not be a sufficient punishment and that his future continuance in service should also be effected, say by reduction in rank or reduction in pay, it might have been necessary to refer the matter to the appointing authority under whose disciplinary control the plaintiff was serving at that time, namely, the Controller of Weights and Measures, But the punishment imposed being what it was and the fact that it did not, in any way, interfere with or interrupt the plaintiff's further continuance in service, the Regional Food Controller could and in my opinion, more appropriately too, pass the order which he did for the recovery of the amount of the loss caused by the plaintiff-It could not be said by any stretch that the punishment was without jurisdiction. Indeed, in one of the cases, even the show cause notice was sent out and probably served also while the plaintiff was still under the disciplinary control of the Regional Food Controller. The fact that he was relieved on transfer to his new post cannot be said to have the effect of discharging him from the consequences of his misconduct or from putting an end to the authority of the Regional Food Controller to punish him by imposing the penalty of recovery of the amount of the loss caused by his misconduct.