KESHAV KRISHNA MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an Excise Inspector. This writ petition is directed against award of an adverse (censure) entry through order dated 05. 04. 2004 passed by Excise Commissioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that in spite of change in the procedure, he permitted two consignments of the liquor factory at which he was posted i. e. Balarampur Distillery, to pass without payment of additional fees. Petitioner's case was that Procedure had been changed but he was not aware about the change. However, as soon as he became aware, he realised the fees for the two consignments, which had been passed without payment of fees from the factory in question. In Para-16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that prior to him, one Sri Subodh Kumar Srivastava was posted as excise inspector at the Distillery in question, i. e. Balarampur Distillery. He had allowed 16 consignments to pass without payment of additional fees. It has been alleged by the petitioner that absolutely no proceedings were taken against Sri S. K. Srivastava. In the counter affidavit, nothing has been stated regarding discrimination in between petitioner and Sri S. K. Srivastava. Against grant of adverse entry dated 05. 04. 2004, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 05. 12. 2006 by the Principal Secretary. In Para-4 of the order passed by the appellate authority, the defence of the petitioner that he was not aware about the change of procedure has been brushed aside by saying that it is only peshbandi. No finding has been recorded that petitioner was in fact aware of the said change. Absolutely nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit that why Sri Srivastava had been permitted to go scot-free. It is accordingly clear-cut case of discrimination. Under slightly different circumstances, Supreme Court has held that if a Committee has taken a decision, then single member of the Committee cannot be singled out for taking action on the basis of the wrong decision and if action is taken, it must be either against all the members of the Committee or none vide 2008 UPLBEC 150 "bongaigaon Refinery and T. P. C. Ltd. and others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarmah" Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Adverse entry order 05. 04. 2004 and the appellate order dated 05. 12. 2006 are set aside. .