SALAHUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 16. 12. 1998 whereby a minor punishment of'censure' was awarded to him, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Services, Faizabad Division in the year 1990 in respect whereto Technical Audit Cell of the Department made an inquiry and submitted report pointing out several irregularities committed by the petitioner in discharge of duties which constituted misconduct. A show cause notice alongwith technical audit report was issued to the petitioner on 26. 5. 1992 which was replied by him vide letter dated 7. 5. 1993. THE State Government after considering the same, imposed minor punishment of "censure" vide order dated 16. 12. 1998. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IT is not disputed that in accordance with Rule 55-B, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith a copy of technical audit report which contain allegations of acts and omissions constituting misconduct on the part of the petitioner and he was given opportunity to submit his reply. The petitioner in fact submitted reply on 7. 5. 1993 wherein purchase of material beyond requisite quantity was not disputed but was sought to be explained that due to expediency of work it was necessary and it had not caused any loss to the Government. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner found that the irregularities committed by the petitioner have not been denied, he was guilty and, therefore, minor penalty of 'censure' has been imposed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed in law for imposing minor penalty has not been followed by respondent No. 1. The contention of the petitioner that a regular inquiry as prescribed under Rule 55 ought to have been made, is incor rect inasmuch as, for imposing minor penalty, said procedure has no application whatsoever, and therefore, the contention is rejected.