RAM SWAROOP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apathy and unsympathetic attitude of the respondents has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The cause itself when untangled and stripped of all unnecessary facts and orders passed by the Respondents centres around a paltry sum of Rs. 574.70.

(2.) The cause raised is one which should have been settled and laid to rest at the level of the respondent themselves especially when the petitioner who had been in employment with them from 1973 and retired on 31/1/2006 could have at best been held liable to repay a sum of Rs.574.70/-. And yet this Court finds that the retiral dues of the Petitioner were admittedly disbursed only on 14/2/2008 and that too after deduction of an amount of Rs.13157.90/-. This deduction itself having been made pursuant to an order dated 08/2/2006 evidently passed after the retirement of the petitioner.

(3.) But first the relevant facts. The petitioner was appointed on 08/3/1973 as a Routine Grade Clerk in the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board. Over a period of service he discharged his duties without complaint and retired while working as a Site Cashier in the office of the respondent Corporation. It appears that a charge sheet dated 22/4/1989 was served upon him alleging that three bills amounting to Rs.359.77/-, Rs.574.70 and Rs.12273.43/- (thus totalling to Rs.13157.90) came to be disbursed by him even before pay orders were recorded on these bills. The act of the petitioner having obtained payment before the passing of the bills was viewed as a serious financial irregularity and accordingly the petitioner was put to notice of the said charge and was required to submit his defence. It appears that in response to the said charge-sheet, the petitioner ultimately submitted a reply on 09/2/2005. No inquiry proceedings appear to have been conducted even though a two member Committee had been constituted. The petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition has averred that the two member Committee constituted for the said purpose refused to hold an inquiry on the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner and had returned the papers to the respondent no.4 for taking appropriate action. Surprisingly, the respondents in response to the aforesaid averments have submitted that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner have not been finalized till date and the charge-sheet against him has also not been revised. The affidavit of the respondents further carries an admission that out of the three questionable bills only Bill No.6111 dated 03/9/1980 amounting to Rs.574.70/- related to the petitioner while the other two bills had been passed by another official namely Raghuvir Saran Sharma and it was in the above background that the respondent Corporation sought permission to issue a revised charge-sheet. This permission sought from the Director Internal Audit has till date not been received from the respondents.