JIWANTI CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the State Government dated 20.10.2001, whereby a sum of Rs.2,37,500/- quantified as loss, caused to the State due to act of the petitioner, has been directed to be recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner towards pension/ gratuity as well as deduction of 10% amount from pension has been ordered.

(2.) The petitioner was posted as District Non Formal Education Officer, Bareilly and was holding the charge of the office of District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, from where she was to retire on 31.1.1994, after attaining the age of superannuation. On 31.1.1994, an order of suspension was passed against the petitioner in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits, which was disposed of with a direction upon the authorities to pay retiral benefits, admissible to her in accordance with law vide order dated 19.8.1994, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By an order passed on 8.2.1996, the State of U.P. decided to proceed further with the disciplinary enquiry by resorting to the provisions of Civil Services Regulation 351-A and the Deputy Deputy Regional Education Officer, Bareilly was appointed as enquiry officer. A charge-sheet on the same date was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply on 16.11.1996.

(3.) It appears that an enquiry was, thereafter, conducted and the enquiry officer submitted its report, which is Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The enquiry officer found that 95 science kits were purchased for a sum of Rs. 5000/- each without inviting tenders from non-notified agency. It was further found that the science kit of better quality had been purchased two years earlier for a sum of Rs. 1742/- and,therefore, the purchase of kits for a sum of Rs.5000/- per kit, in the manner as had been done, was not justified. The enquiry officer also found that justification for such purchase was attempted to be made on the basis of minutes of a purchase committee meeting dated 1.3.1993 in which the item relating to purchase of science kit was added with different hand writing at the end of the third page and continued at the top of page-4 clearly demonstrating that it was subsequently added to create justification for the purchase. These minutes were signed by the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat and the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the District Purchase Committee. The enquiry officer, after finding that the purchase was illegally made on excessively higher amount, observed that it was not possible to fix responsibility on any one person in the matter and recommended to exonerate petitioner from charges.