RAM PRATAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.1989 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Junior Engineer by the respondent No. 1. Prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as in continuous service with consequential benefits of salary, increments, seniority and promotion, etc. has also been made.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that it was on 28.10.1968 that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in Irrigation Department, U. P., Lucknow. During the period from June, 1969 to April, 1971, the petitioner was posted in Emergency Lift Irrigation Department, Allahabad at Lohra Pump Canal. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Public Service Commission in the year 1973 and he was confirmed on the aforesaid post on 1.3.1978. Petitioner, according to him. had good service record and was not awarded any adverse entry. He was granted increments in his salary and was also permitted to cross efficiency bar in the meanwhile. H was in the year 1980-81 that some irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and others were detected. The matter was referred to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules. 1974. The Administrative Tribunal No. 2 issued a charge-sheet dated 18.2.1981 which was served upon the petitioner on 26.3.1981, Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. It will not be out of place to state that similar charge-sheet was also issued to Sri Khushal Singh. the Assistant Engineer working in the aforesaid division and canal with the petitioner. The main charge against the petitioner and Khushal Singh was that during the aforesaid period when they were posted at aforesaid Lohra Pump Canal, they in collusion with one Paras Nath Misra prepared a farzi/fictitious muster roll and caused financial loss to the Government of Rs. 735.50 paise. The quantum of amount of loss of the Government funds has. however, been found to be incorrect on account of wrong calculation by the punishing authority in the impugned order. The correct amount is stated to be Rs. 622.50 paise and according to the calculation of petitioner it comes to only Rs. 480.

(3.) The petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet submitted his explanation on 31.3.1981 denying the charges levelled against him. It was stated that petitioner was not responsible for any loss of Government Funds, It was not his duty to personally and individually verify the payment of wages to the muster roll employees. It was asserted that there was absolutely no evidence on the record that work was not taken from muster roll employees. during aforesaid period. It was also asserted that payment of wages was actually under the direct control and supervision of the Assistant Engineer and not under the petitioner. Petitioner also submitted his written arguments on 21.9.1985 before the Tribunal. Since the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him, inquiry was conducted by the aforesaid Administrative Tribunal in which one Sri Nazim Ali Shaida. the then Engineer-in-Chief (Mechanical) Irrigation Department. U. P., Lucknow was appointed as Assessor. He. however, did not express his opinion regarding the misutilisation of Government funds against the petitioner. Meanwhile on 24.11.1987 petitioner was granted selection grade by the competent authority and was also promoted to cross efficiency bar. It was on 17.8.1989 that the petitioner was selected for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and a Government Order of the same date was also issued and in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner handed over the charge of the post of Junior Engineer in Maneri Bhali Construction Division. Uttarkashi and proceeded to Join the post of Assistant Engineer at Azamgarh. Meanwhile, the impugned order of removal dated 11.8.1989 was passed against the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation alleged to have been made by the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner, therefore, had to approach this Court and file the present petition for the abovementioned reliefs.