BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Kartikey Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 18th of June, 2008 (Annexure No.6), whereby the Milk Commissioner, has proposed the punishment upon the petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.3,3,47,998/ - from his gratuity and other retiral dues.

(3.) THE first charge against the petitioner was that he purchased 4 lakh vaccines against the budget allotted for purchase of 3 lakh vaccines, thus he expent the amount more than the proposed budget to purchase the vaccines. The second charge against him was that he received Rs.45,000/ - in the month of March, 2004 from Cold Storage owner, but issued the receipt of only Rs.35,000/ -. The third charge is that he also fabricated the documents and posed to have functioned as Dudhwa Dugdha Samiti since 1.8.2004 in the forged manner and also paid an amount of Rs.29,498/ - for the period 1.8.2004 to 6.11.2004. The fourth charge was that on inspection 52.200 kg. ghee meant for human consumption was fund useless and 18.200 kg. ghee was found with fungus. Similarly, 53.600 kg. cream for human consumption was found useless and 82.800 kg. cream was found with fungus. The fifth charge against him was that no proper percentage of fat was found in the material. The sixth charge was that the petitioner changed the data note statement of MPR -Operating Trading Statement in vehimical manner as in the month of January, 2005 in Operating Trading receipts of in place of Rs.2,17,029.00 he showed the loss of only Rs.30,526/ - and thus mislead the headquarters and higher officers. The seventh charge was that he functioned contrary to Rules and also compelled the staff to act against the law. 8th charge against him was that he did not follow the directions of headquarters to hand over the charge of the unit incharge to one Shri J.P.Verma and also compelled the Accountant/Store Incharge to proceed on leave unauthorizedly and delayed in handing over and taking over the charge and he himself proceeded on casual leave on 25.2.2005. The 9th charge against the petitioner was that he committed deliberate delay in providing the grant etc. and also committed forgery in weighing/inspecting the material.