GAYA PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner was Accountant in the Agra Treasury. For some instance of wrong payment made in the year 1990, an FIR was lodged against seven persons, which did not include the name of the petitioner. However, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, in which charge-sheet was submitted on 26-8-1992, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. However, in the meantime, in the criminal case, out of seven persons named, four persons were found to be guilty of offences and were identified. However, the remaining three persons could not be identified. The same was communicated by the Economics Offences Wing, U. P. to the State Government vide communication dated 26-12-1996, wherein it was mentioned that the departmental proceeding may be initiated against some official of treasury, including the petitioner.

(2.) AFTER submission of the charge-sheet and reply given by the petitioner in the departmental proceedings on 26-8-1992, an enquiry report was submitted only on dated 15-9-2000 and thereafter vide order dated 24-5-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra the punishment of dismissal of service and recovery of Rs. 1,54,481/-was directed to be made from the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra on dated 23-10-2002 whereby the punishment of dismissal was reduced to that of reversion to the next lower grade in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000 but the same was also subjected to the condition that the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 1,54,481/ -. It was further directed that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary during the period he remained out of service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 24-5-2002 and 23-10-2002 the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even in the enquiry report the three charges against the petitioner had only been said to be proved partly but still the impugned order punishing the petitioner has been passed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not the person responsible for payment of person and it was the Pension Disbursing Officer who was responsible for the same. It has thus been urged that order of reversion as well the order directing the recovery from the petitioner is wholly unjustified and liable to be quashed. It has also been submitted that as per the instructions issued by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Government of India regarding payment of pension, in para 10 it has been provided that Pension Disbursing Officers are to be personally responsible for the acts of their subordinates and Government will hold them responsible for any loss which may result from their own supineness or the dishonesty of their subordinates. As such, the contention is that the petitioner, who was only an Accountant, could not be held responsible for any such wrong payment of pension.