GOPAL KUMAR MATHUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26. 21998 by which the petitioner has been removed from service; the judgment and order dated 8. 2. 2000 passed by the U. P. Pubic Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'tribunal') by which the claim petition of the petitioner has been rejected and also the order dated 5. 9. 2000 by which the review application filed against the order dated 5. 9. 2000 has been rejected by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE fact and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, while posted as Executive Engineer at Allahabad, was served with a charge-sheet dated 31. 1. 1997 containing following three charges : charge No. 1 : He spent more than allotted funds on the projects sanctioned by the Government in different financial years and, thus, has violated para 375 (b) of financial hand book Vol. 6 and is guilty of dereliction to duties in observing para 108 of the U. P. Budget Manual. Charge No. 2 : He got the work done from the contractors for a sum of Rs. 2. 20 crores without allocation of fund and thereby 220 vouchers in respect to aforesaid payment remained pending. He has, thus, violated para 375 of financial hand book Vol. 6 and is guilty of dereliction to duties in observing para 108 of the U. P. Budget Manual by getting the work done from the contractors without allocation of funds. Charge No. 3 : For the financial years 1990-91 to 1993-94, temporary imprest for a total sum of Rs. 506. 24 lacs were opened but have not been adjusted and still adjustment of temporary imprest of Rs. 2,64,783. 10 is pending and in view thereof, payment of labourers could not be made and thereby temporary imprest have been kept unadjusted. Non-payment of wages to labourers and absence of any demand for payment by the labourers creates doubt on the genuinely of the work makes integrity doubtful.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charges on 12. 3. 1997. After conclusion of the enquiry, the inquiry officer submitted the report recording following findings on the aforesaid charges :-Charge No. 1 has been found to be proved partly to the extent of non-observance of para 376 of financial hand book Vol. 6, i. e. excess expenditure than the allotted funds on the work of Magh mela, however, rest of the charge has not been found proved. Similarly, charge No. 2 has been found proved as the payments were stopped due to non-availability of funds. In charge No. 3, only non-adjustment of temporary imprest has been found proved and rest of the charge has not been found proved. Therefore, charge of lack of integrity stands disproved.