LAWS(ALL)-1999-8-151

RAVINDRA NATH BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 25, 1999
RAVINDRA NATH BANERJEE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.03.97 (Annexure-3 to the petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondents ro release the gratuity with interest and full pension of the petitioner. I have heard Sri T.P. Singh and Sri Ashok Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel . for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner retired on 31.07.91 as Associate District Inspector of School, Fatehpur. From 27.08.1985 to 30.5.87 the petitioner worked as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad and thereafter he was transferred out of Allahabad. A charge sheet dated 26.08.87 was issued to him regarding certain allegations during his tenure as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad. True copy of the charge sheet is Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 12.05.88. it is alleged that thereafter the petitioner was not given opportunity to produce his evidence nor cross-examine the witnesses against him. After his retirement he was not paid his gratuity but was paid only provisional pension. The petitioner filed writ petition no. 24969 of 1994 in this court in which an order was passed directing the enquiry to be completed within three weeks. Thereafter notice dated 05.05.94 was issued to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report. True copy of the letter dated 05.05.94 has been annexed as Annesure-2 to the petition. Thereafter the impugned order dated 06.03.97 was passed reducing the petitioner's pension to 50% and withholding the entire gratuity amount. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) The order dated 06.03.1997 is based on the allegations against the petitioner on charges no. 5,6, and 11. As regard the other charges it has been stated in the enquiry report dated 14.10.1992 that no financial loss was caused to the State Govt. on these charges. Charge no. 5 related to appointment of some Sanskrit teacher made by the petitioner on 24.01.86 in certain Basic School in urban areas whereas it is alleged that the post had been allotted for the rural areas in view of the order of the Director of Education (Basic) passed on 27.01.86. These appointments were ordered to be cancelled by the Regional Asstt. Director of Education ( Basic), Alld. Vide order dated 04.08.86. Writ petitions were filed by the Sanskrit teachers who were appointed by the petitioner and interim orders were passed by the High Court on the strength of which these teachers are still continuing in service and are being paid salary by the State Govt. Thus it is evident that the said teachers are being paid salary on account of interim orders of the High Court and hence it cannot be said that financial loss was caused to the Govt. by the petitioner . Moreover there is no allegation in the impugned order that the petitioner obtained any benefit in making such appointments or that they were made malafide. In fact the order of the Director of Educaiton (Basic) to the effect that appointment will be made in rural areas was passed after the petitioner had made the appointments, and hence the petitioner cannot be blamed for this. As regard charge no. 6 which related to appointment of Urdu teachers such appointments were cancelled subsequently, but against the cancellation order the teachers filed writ petition no. 11730 of 1986 Kishwar Sultan and others v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari. and an interim order was passed as follows: