MUNIRUL HAQUE SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the notices contained in Annexures-2 and 4 besides the order contained in Annexure-6 passed by respondent No. 3, the Regional Food Controller. Faizabad Region, Faizabad.

(2.) The gist of the matter is that in the year 1975, the petitioner was posted as In-charge of F. C. 1. Godown at Barabanki and that since the Godown was in a dilapidated condition, therefore, he reported the matter to respondent No. 3 recommending the shifting of the food-grain stock to a safer place, and even though the respondent No. 3 did not move into action, there was heavy rainfall, with the result that some of the stocks were damaged on being exposed to poor weather. The petitioner with the help of the then Senior Marketing Inspector Sri Ram Pal Singh on his own removed the stocks temporarily to a safer place as a make-shift arrangement and impressed upon respondent No. 3 to find out a permanent place for its storage, but no action was taken, with the result that the stock perished.

(3.) It was further averred that vide Annexure-2 dated 18/23.10.1978, he was rather insinuated for having neglected the maintenance of 6,000 bags and asked to explain as to why he be not made to make up the loss. The petitioner promptly replied to that letter vide Annexure-3 and sought a month's time to verify the facts for submitting a detailed reply. But then he also received notice contained in Annexure-4 dated 30.3.1979 as if because of his negligence 3,372 empty bags were totally destroyed in the aforesaid incident. This notice was actually addressed to three persons including two others, viz., two Senior Marketing Inspectors including S/Sri Ram Pal Singh and G. C. Sharma. The petitioner's reply contained in Annexure-5 to the aforesaid notice failed to satisfy the respondents and thus he was fastened with the liability of 75% loss caused in the process. The remaining 25% was to be recovered from the Senior Marketing Inspectors, in this way, the department proceeded to recover an amount of Rs. 9.544.63 p. from his salary.