DR. MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by Dr. Murli Dhar Upadhyaya challenging the order of penalty dated 30.6.1993, whereby he was removed from service. The petitioner died on 15.2.1998. His legal representatives were however allowed to substitute him as petitioners on their application. The petitioner was posted as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Panchayat Samiti, Sagwada, Distt. Udaipur. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was issued to him by the respondents on 25.6.1986. The charge against him was that he connived with Manager Central Co-operative Society, Loan Supervisor and other Officers in preparing forged purchase certificate and fitness certificates of the cattle thereby abused the office held by him and was negligent in discharge of his duties. Facts as stated in the statements of charge are that in a Camp organised at Village Chhota Diwda mid term loan of Rs. 2,65,100.00 was sanctioned to 56 members of the society. Although the petitioner was not Member of the Purchase Committee but he signed purchase certificates and has also given fitness certificates of all the cattles and was responsible for their tagging and tattooing. Loan amount was in fact disbursed to nineteen persons only which was given to sellers instead of being given to buyers. In the circumstances, therefore, was no basis for the petitioner to sign purchase certificates and issue fitness certificates of the animals and showing their tagging and tattooing.

(2.) The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet on 23.10.86 in which he denied the charges. In reply, he stated that he was no member of the Purchase Committee, therefore, there was no question of his making signature on any purchase certificate and he did not commit any forgery. There were only three members in the committee which were, B.D.O., representatives of Bank and the beneficiary member. Fitness certificates were issued by him in normal discharge of his duties, after satisfying himself about fitness of cattle. Such certificates were issued after deal was finalised by the Purchase Committee. He, therefore, stated that if as against 59 fitness certificates, loan amount was disbursed to only 19 persons; he cannot be held responsible for the same because disbursement of the loan was function of the purchase committee and it depended on the agreement arrived at between buyer and seller. This was within discretion of the Purchase Committee to sanction loan and if so, up to what extent and to distribute the same to sellers. If there had been any irregularity in disbursement of the loan, only Purchase Committee or its members could be held responsible for the same.

(3.) Apart from the petitioner, charge under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was also issued to Shri Prem Sukh Somani who at the relevant time was working as BDO Panchayat Samiti, Sagwada and was member of the Purchase Committee. A similar charge against him was also framed. Joint enquiry was held against both the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Somani. As many as five witnesses were examined by the department in support of charges. The department also produced seven exhibits before the enquiry officer. Both the delinquent officers got examined themselves as witnesses in their defence but none of them produced any documents.