DEVI DAYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the office of the opposite party, the District Judge, Lucknow on 3rd Nov., 1939. In due course he gained promotion to different posts and finally in Jan., 1973 he was working as Munsarim, Judge small Cause Court, Lucknow. It appears that some complaints were made about the loss of nine plaints filed in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court. Lucknow. A preliminary enquiry was held by Shri Om Prakash, the then Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow. He submitted a report holding that the 9 plaints were actually handed over, to the petitioner in the month of January. 1973 and they had been lost due to his negligence. On receipt of this report Shri H. G. Shukla, the then District Judge, Lucknow ordered a more thorough enquiry against the petitioner according to the rules after framing charges against him. Shri I. S Mathur, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

(2.) Before the enquiry could commence the petitioner filed an application on 9th June, 1973 in which he admitted the loss of the plaints due to his negligence. He also prayed that in view of his admission it was not necessary to hold an enquiry. He, however, expressed his sincere regrets and threw himself at the mercy of the District Judge for awarding him such punishment as he may deem fit and proper. Mr. Shukla accepted his suggestion and abandoned the enquiry. He recorded a finding that the plaints in question were presented to the petitioner on different dates in Jan., 1973 and they had been lost due to his negligence. He then set out to examine the facts and circumstances of the case with a view to awarding suitable punishment to the petitioner. He noticed that Sri Om Prakash, who held the preliminary enquiry had spoken very highly of the integrity of the petitioner and had come to the conclusion that no mala fide could be attributed to the petitioner inasmuch as the Court fees stamps had already been punched and bore the names of the plaintiffs so that the stamps could not be used a second time. Mr. Shukla agreed with these observations and stated:-

(3.) Sri Om Prakash had pointed out in his preliminary report that the petitioner was a victim of a conspiracy in as much a senior official of his own grade was interested in ousting him and occupying that post himself. In his explanation the petitioner had not named the official who wanted to oust him but on enquiry Shri Om Prakash came to the conclusion that one Shri Madho Prasad, the Record Keeper of the District Judge's court was the person who aspiring to occupy the post of the petitioner and was responsible for the removal of the plaints. Mr. Shukla agreed with the finding also and made the following observation:-