T.N.MISRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the"CrPC") is the order dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure-1 to this petition) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 IPC in complaint case No. 74 of 2008 filed by opposite party No.2 .

(2.) The facts, in brief, emerged out from the pleadings of petitioners are that petitioner No.1 Triloki Nath Misra was the Manager of Management Committee of Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow (for short 'College'). Petitioner No.2, Dr. Brij Kishore Dwivedi was the Principal of the aforesaid College. Petitioner No.3 Chhote Lal was a Class III employee of the aforesaid College.

(3.) One Visheshwar Lal Yadav,[for short 'VLY'] (mention as Vireshwar Lal Yadav in petition) is the father of Anil Kumar Yadav, O.P. No.2. The aforesaid Anil Kumar Yadav is the complainant/opposite party No. 2. Sri VLY was a Class VI employee in the aforesaid College,was allotted a staff quarter within the College premises for his residence being employee of college. The aforesaid College was affiliated with Lucknow University. Sri VLY unauthorisedly constructed a shop by breaking boundary wall of the College in his residential accommodation provided to him by the College. The shop was constructed in between 17th July, 1995 to 19th July, 1995 and thus VLY converted the residential premises for commercial use. Sri VLY was directed on 19.08.1995 by the College administration to remove the aforesaid construction of shop and keep the premises in original shape. This written direction was communicated to VLY. When direction dated 2.8.1995 (Annexure No.2) was not complied by VLY, a FIR was lodged against VLY on 9.8.1995 (Annexure No.3) in police station Husainganj, Lucknow under the provision of Prevention of Dissipation of Assets Act, 1974 for damaging and misusing the property of an educational institution for his own and also under Section 448 IPC, having case crime No. 328 of 1995. VLY was arrested and bailed out in this case. A departmental inquiry was also initiated against VLY and he was charge-sheeted on 21.08.1995 (Annexure No.4). The inquiry was concluded in view of provision of Section 35.01 of statute of Lucknow University by the Inquiry Officer. VLY found guilty and charges were found proved against VLY in inquiry report dated 09.03.1998 (Annexure No.5). In regard to making alteration in residential accommodation and illegal construction of shop, the punishment of dismissal from service was proposed by the competent authority against VLY. Thereafter proposal for punishment was sent on 26.08.1998 to District Inspector of School, Lucknow (for short 'DIOS') for its approval in accordance with provision of section 24.03 of the statute. The DIOS disapproved the proposal of dismissal of VLY by its order dated 13.6.2000 (Annexure No.6). However, DIOS himself recorded a positive finding in its order dated 13.06.2000 that VLY has constructed a shop by breaking the boundary wall of the quarter. An appeal has been preferred by the Management of the College against the order of DIOS, which was disposed of on 15.03.2002 (Annexure No.7) by the Deputy Director of Education, 6th Region, Lucknow(For short 'DyDE') with the observation that VLY got long service to his credits, therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is dis-proportionate. The DyDE also recorded finding that VLY has constructed a shop in college premises by altering the residential accommodation provided to him during the course of his employment. DyDE directed VLY for restoring property of the college to its original shape within 15 days and also to vacate the accommodation within one month from the date of passing of the aforesaid order. Despite the orders of DyDE, VLY did not comply with the aforesaid order. The college administration aggrieved by the appellate order as well as the order of the DIOS filed a writ petition No. 4868(SS) of 2002 before this Court impleading VLY as opposite party No.5. The said writ petition is still pending. However, no counter affidavit has been filed in the aforesaid writ petition by the opposite parties.