BHUPENDRA KUMAR MISRA L P MISRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ASSISTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 1.9.95 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service he has filed the above noted writ petition, with the allegation that he was a permanent Class IV employee in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur. Since very inception of his services the petitioner was looking after the works of Electronics in the office and also connected with the telephones and Fax services and while working as such the petitioner was asked to do the work of Class III employee i.e. accounts work in the office of Corporation. It is alleged that an order was given by U.P. Financial Corporation to M/s Sheopati Electricals and Electronics Corporation, Kanpur for supply of certain Articles to U.P. Financial Corporation and in pursuance thereof they have supplied the said Articles. Thereafter M/s Sheopati Electricals and Electronics Corporation, Kanpur have submitted their Bill to the U.P. Financial Corporation for payment. In pursuance thereof office made a proposal to the General Manager for payment of bill which was approved by General Manager. On 17.11.93 General Manager Sri P.K. Mohanty passed an order to pay the amount claimed in the said bill but it was increased from Rs. 5055/- to Rs. 15055/- The copy of the order passed by General Manager is on record as Annexure 4 of the writ petition. It is alleged that writing in the order for payment is in the hand writing of the petitioner but some one manipulated the amount and added one (1) before figure 5055/- Rs. and made it 15055/- by making over writing in place of rupees five thousand fifty five as fifteen thousand fifty five. Aforesaid manipulation was done in different ink and different hand writing. Thereafter in pursuance of the said order dated 17.11.1993 a cheque of aforesaid amount of Rs. 15055/- was issued on 25.11.1993 in favour of M/s Sheopati Electricals and Electronics Corporation, Kanpur. It appears that M/s Sheopati Electricals and Electronics Corporation, Kanpur encashed the aforesaid cheque then they came to know about the said mistake and issued a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- on 27.11.1993 for refunding excess payment made to them. A true copy of the letter refunding Rs. 10,000/- to the Manager of U.P. Financial Corporation and date of refund of cheque including endorsement of Manager U.P. Financial Corporation on the said letter is on record as Annexure 5 of the writ petition.

(2.) It is in connection of the aforesaid incident the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.12.1993 and a charge-sheet was also issued on 27.12.1993 and served upon him. The petitioner has replied the said charge-sheet and lastly replied on 18.4.1994 and denied the charges levelled against him. On 27.12.1993 an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner who held the disciplinary inquiry and has submitted the inquiry report to Disciplinary Authority on 25.4.1995 holding the petitioner guilty of charge levelled against him. Thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 22nd June, 1995 asking his reply thereon, indicating therein that the petitioner is responsible for issue of cheque of excess amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he has made some manipulation in the record of the office. A true copy of show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 22nd June, 1995 is on record as Annexure 6 of the writ petition. The petitioner replied the aforesaid show cause notice, a true copy of which is on record as Annexure 7 of the writ petition. Thereupon the disciplinary authority without going through the reply submitted by the petitioner against the finding of Inquiry Officer in correct perspective has dismissed the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 1.9.95 wherein one line order has been passed to the effect that the petitioner has been found guilty of committing act of financial embezzlement and criminal breach of trust in violation of Regulation 26 of U.P. Financial Corporation Staff Regulations. Hence this petition.

(3.) Heard Sri R.P. Singh holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the case has been taken in revised list. Since writ petition is pending for last ten years and on behalf of the respondents a caveat had already been lodged but no counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition, therefore, court left with no option except to proceed exparte against respondent, on the basis of undisputed available materials on record.