VIRENDRA NATH RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of finally at this stage.

(3.) The petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Tubewell Sub-Division-I, Faizabad in the year 1984 and continued to work there as such till September, 1993. A contract was awarded in favour of Contracter Hansraj Yadav with respect to transportation of P. V. C. pipes from Central Stores Faizabad to Tubewell) No. 56 T. G. Village Muhin uddinpur, Tanda, Faizabad. It has been averred in the writ petition that the contractor accordingly transported the P. V. C. pipes to the agreed destination up to 3-6-1993 and the petitioner is said to have verified the receipt of the requisite quantity of P. V. C, pipes on 10-6-1983. Petitioner has stated that this fact was recorded in the measurement bock by him on 10-6-93. There was no store according to the petitioner at the place to keep the P. V. C. pipes safely therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer, Tubewell Division-I on 12-6-1993 requesting for appointment of a Chowkidar immediately or entrust the work of laying down of the pipes to the contractor himself. It appears that the opposite parties did not act upon this letter and the petitioner was relieved of his duties from the said place of posting on 4-9-1993 on being transferred to another Division. It was thereafter detected that the said pipes were lost. The opposite parties therefore issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 4-11-1993 contained in Annexure-4 seeking an explanation as to why a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- be not recovered from the petitioner for transporting the pipes unauthorisedly. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 18-1-1994 which is contained in Annexure No. 5. It appears that the opposite parties not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner issued a charge-sheet dated 15-6-1995 and the petitioner has already submitted a reply to the same which is dated 29-7-1995 and is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to para 14 and submits that a categorical statement has been made by the petitioner on an affidavit that the said enquiry pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet is still pending but before it could be concluded the opposite parties have issued a recovery memo dated 20-8-1996 by which it has been directed to recover Rs. 2,30,000/- from the salary of the petitioner in monthly instalment of Rs. 17,00/. This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the same.