SHIV PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 18.8.2008 whereby he has been dismissed from service from the post of Collection Amin.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.1996. Charge no. 1 was that during the five months from April, 1996 to August, 1996 the total recovery by the petitioner was only 26,859/ - whereas as per the Board of Revenue an Amin is required to make a collection at Rs. 60,000/ - per month and thus the average recovery made by the petitioner in one month comes to only Rs. 5,310/ -, although during the same period on an average he was required to recover at least Rs. 24,990/ -. The charge no. 2 against the petitioner is that he was neither submitting his programme nor attending the meetings of Amins on Tehsil Diwas, which is contrary to the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. The third charge against the petitioner is that he realized Rs. 5,831/ - from one Shri Ram Nihor Yadav but had not deposited the same in the government treasury. An enquiry was held and by an order dated 30.4.1999 the petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal in writ petition no. 27742 of 1998 and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy by order dated 10.5.2004 on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy before the State Public Services Tribunal. The petitioner then filed a claim petition no. 1062 of 2004 and after exchange of pleadings the claim petition was heard and allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 31.7.2007. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in the service by order dated 4.10.2007. He was then issued a show cause notice to submit reply within 15 days. It is in pursuance thereof that the departmental enquiry has been concluded and the fresh order dated 18.8.2008 had been passed and the petitioner was removed from service.

(3.) I have heard Shri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the documents on record.