SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. By an order dated 22-11-1995 the confidential report/entry for the year 1994-95 in respect of the petitioner's service was with held on the ground that he was found guilty of both the charges in the enquiry held against him. By another order dated 22-11-1995 the petitioner having been found guilty of both the charges in respect whereof he was subjected to a domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service. These two orders are Annexures-2 and 1 respectively to the wite petition and have since been chal lenged by means of this writ petition.

(2.) SHRI M. L. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner had assailed the said orders on the ground that the petitioner has suf fered double jeopardy. Inasmuch as by reason of finding of guilt in the domestic enquiry, the petitioner has been awarded punishment of with holding of entry in the service record with regard to integrity and there after second punishment of dismissal was awarded to him out of the self same charges. There cannot be two punish ments-one minor and another major, there by punishing twice for the same charge. He also alleges that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity in the domestic enquiry. Some of the documents which he had asked were not furnished to him. He also contends that even on merit, the finding is perverse. Inasmuch as even though the voucher was singed by the petitioner but in fact the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. On the other hand it was one SHRI Ashok Kumar Mishra who was the real guilty person in whose account the cheque was encashed and against whom the authority lodged a First Information Report and had suspended him but the said Ashok Kumar Mishra is still working whereas on the fault of said SHRI Ashok Kumar Mishra, the petitioner has been victimised. He also drawn my attention to the various record and had pointed out that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges. He had also relied on the decision in the case of Mohd. Aquil Siddiqui v. U. P. State Public Service Tribunal, (1) Jawahar Bhavan, Lucknow & Ors. , 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1149, in support of his con tention that even in this case if the petitioner was found guilty of the charges even then the punishment is dispropor tionate and the petitioner having retired in the meantime he would have been awarded similar punishment as has been awarded in similar circumstances in the case of Mohd. Aquil Siddiqui (supra ).

(3.) THE writ petition was filed some time in 1995. Counter and Rejoinder Af fidavits have been exchanged and the preliminary objection was raised at the time when the matter was taken up today. Only in reply to the argument made by Mr. Rai, Mr. K. R. Singh had taken this point. In such circumstances, it appears that Mr. Singh was not very serious in pressing the preliminary objection. Had he been so serious in that event he would have taken this point at the very outset before Shri Rai had opened his case. THE a part af fidavits have been exchanged and the mat ter has been heard. THErefore, I do not find any reason that the petitioner could not now be thrown on the ground of alterna tive remedy. THErefore, this point taken by Mr. Singh is overruled.