PREM SHANKAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the respondent no. 1 directing for recovery of Rs. 17748/- of the petitioner on account of loss cause to the Government.

(2.) The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was working as District Horticulture Officer in the year 1995 at Varanasi. There was an audit inspection in the year 1994-95 wherein it was found that 40.80 quintal potato seed was given to the farmers for distribution and the price whereof of Rs. 17,748/- was not deposited in the accounts causing loss to the government revenue to the tune of Rs. 17,748/-. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.11.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The Director appointed one Sri Ram Ratan, respondent no. 5 as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry whereagainst the petitioner made a complaint that he is biased and should not be permitted to hold inquiry against the petitioner. Neither any inquiry was conducted nor the petitioner was given any opportunity and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) on 20.8.1996. Thereafter without supplying a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner the impugned order has been passed by respondent no. 1, which is illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also said that the petitioner has already retired on 30.6.1998 and therefore, no recovery can be made from the amount payable to him as retiral benefits. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had obtained potato seed worth Rs. 17,748/- vide bill No. 634125 dated 31.10.1994 on the back whereof he has acknowledged the receipt but did not deposit the amount in government treasury. This deficiency was noted in the audit inspection and despite information to the petitioner the amount was not deposited. Thereafter comments were sought from the petitioner, and Deputy Director, Horticulture, Varanasi was also required to submit his report. He vide report dated 18.6.1996 held that the petitioner was guilty of not depositing Rs. 17,748/-. The petitioner complained against Sri Ram Ratan, the then Deputy Director, Horticulture, Varanasi stating that he was biased against him and consequently, Sri S.P. Tripathi, Joint Director, Directorate, Horticulture, Lucknow was appointed as Inquiry Officer who declined to conduct inquiry since he was already engaged in number of departmental inquiries. Consequently, another officer i.e. Joint Director (Fruit Conservation) Rajkiya Phal Sanrakshan evam Dibba Bandi Sansthan, Lucknow was appointed Inquiry Officer vide Director's letter dated 23.2.1999 and pursuant to his inquiry report dated 24.3.1999 the order dated 31.1.2000 was issued by the respondent no. 1. The amount in dispute has already been recovered and realised from the petitioner and has been deposited with the government treasury on 31.3.2000. It is said that the petitioner was given opportunity and he submitted his reply on 26.10.1995, 22.11.1995, 29.1.1996, 29/30.1.1996, 5.8.1996, 20.8.1996, 14.7.1997 and 24.10.1997. It is also said that the audit inspection report was also communicated to the petitioner vide Director's letter dated 8.11.1995 and the petitioner was required to submit his reply within 10 days after receipt thereof but he did not submit any reply within time. The contention of the petitioner that the inquiry has been conducted by an officer who was personally biased against him, has been denied, inasmuch as the ultimate inquiry has been conducted by a different officer working on higher post and pursuant to his report, the impugned order has been passed. It is said that the entire remaining retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner, details whereof has been mentioned in para 15 of the counter affidavit.

(3.) The aforesaid counter affidavit was received by learned counsel for the petitioner on 16.10.2003 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.