STATE OF U.P. Vs. GIRJESH NARAYAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge dtd. 20/9/2022 by which the writ petition1 filed by the non-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was allowed and the orders dtd. 15/1/2009, 4/11/2011 and 16/12/2011 were set aside. By order dtd. 15/1/2009, permission was granted by the Governor under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after he had attained the age of superannuation. By order dtd. 4/11/2011, the State Public Service Commission granted its approval to the proposed action against the petitioner and by order dtd. 16/12/2011, the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. has forfeited the entire gratuity of the petitioner and had directed for withholding of pension until the pecuniary loss allegedly suffered by the Government is recovered.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Marketing Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department of Government of U.P. in 1972-73. In 1998, he was promoted to the post of Senior Marketing Inspector. In the year 2004, he was suspended and was served with a charge sheet dtd. 22/9/2004 levelling four charges. The first charge related to shortage in stock of sugar, wheat and rice; the second charge related to 6-8 months' delay in submitting bank draft of PDS Khadyan Nirgaman resulting in loss of interest to the Government; the third charge related to transferring stock of sugar and rice from Sikandarpur Centre to Pandah Centre; and the fourth charge related to dispatch of sugar from Pandah Centre to Account Office during the year 2001-02, the receipt of which was not being confirmed by the Account Office.

(3.) The suspension of the petitioner was revoked by order dtd. 1/8/2005, but the departmental proceedings were continued. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10/10/2005 denying all the charges. In reply to charge no.1, he took the defence that Deputy Senior Marketing Officer took the charge in his absence. He specifically pleaded that in fact, the stocks when compared with daily stock register would reveal that there was no shortage but only storage losses. In respect of charge no.2, he took specific defence that he alongwith guard went to Azamgarh to deliver the cheque to concerned clerk, but he demanded bribe and did not accept the cheque. The petitioner also stated that he made a complaint in this respect to the Assistant Marketing Inspector, but no heed was paid to the same. He consequently sent the cheque by registered post and as such, charge no.2 relating to delay in handing over the cheque and consequent loss of interest was wholly baseless. In respect of third charge, he explained that Sikandarpur and Pandah godowns were in same building at the time of his transfer. Physical verification of the stock would have taken several hours and would have delayed handing over of charge. Therefore, under due intimation to Regional Food Controller and Deputy Regional Food Officer, the stock was transferred to the stock of Pandah and this facilitated immediate handing over of charge of Sikandarpur godown. It had not resulted in any loss to the Government. In respect of charge no.4, the explanation was that entire sugar sent to Account Office was duly received and DTS between 1/11/2001 to 31/3/2001 were sent to Regional Accounts Officer (Foods), Azamgarh. Entry of the said transaction duly finds place in the records of Pandah Centre which can be easily obtained to verify the stand of the petitioner.