BACHAN DEV PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 459 of 1991, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. THE writ petitioner-appellant was an employee of the State Government. After a departmental inquiry, he was visited with the penalty of dismissal from service by the District Magistrate. Against that, he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. THE only submission made by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was in regard to the quantum of punishment. It was submitted on his behalf that other two employees namely Raja Ram and Shiv Lal Jain were facing the departmental proceedings along with the appellant and on their appeal, the Commissioner reduced their punishment from dismissal to reduction in rank. Mr. V.S. Gupta holding brief of Mr. P.N. Ojha submits that Raja Ram and Shiv Lal Jain had faced the same charge but their punishment has been reduced to that of reduction in rank and so the dismissal of the appellant is bad in law. THE learned Single Judge has negatived this contention and while doing so he has observed that charge against the appellant is not identical to those persons. THE degree of responsibility of those persons are different and further, it is the appellant who had prepared the map and showed existence of two wells, which on inquiry was found that in fact, it did not exist. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is not comparable to that of the aforesaid two persons and the learned Single Judge did not err in recording the said finding. Mr. Gupta then submits that the appellant was not given proper opportunity. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge clearly shows that no such grievance was raised before him. In this connection, the learned Single Judge has clearly observed as follows: "It has not been argued that the petitioner was not given due opportunity to defend the charges nor any irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel while conducting the departmental proceeding. THE order of the learned Commissioner, in my view, is not perverse and it does not suffer from any infirmity. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner." It has also been attempted to be argued that the order of punishment has been passed by a person who is not competent and in this connection reliance has been placed of a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Prem Narain Pande and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 634. THEre does not seem to be any pleadings in this regard in the writ petition and further, said point was not urged before the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to go into this submission in the present appeal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss it accordingly.