Allowed

Goverdhan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2018SPLA/922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal allowing the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order that held the appellant embezzled funds and directed disciplinary action, noting the finding was perverse as construction was completed in 2009 and damage was due to lack of maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.08.2018 set aside; Writ Petition allowed; Order dated 13.06.2018 set aside.

Goverdhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 922 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Goverdhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

(Per Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶7

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the

¶8

order dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ A no.17401 of 2018.

¶9

Learned Single Judge has passed following order:-

¶10

"This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th June 2018 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent No.2-Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad directing the petitioner to complete the construction of the school for which he was given fund, while he was working on the post of Principal of the School in the year 2009.

¶11

There is no dispute that the funds were released in favour of the petitioner for construction of the school in the year 2009. Till 2017, when he was retired on 31st March 2017 the construction of the school was not completed. From the facts as stated in the impugned order it is clear that the petitioner has embezzled the funds which were meant for construction of the school and, therefore, taking a lenient view the impugned order was passed.

¶12

Sri B.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the basis of the instructions, submits that the petitioner had given an affidavit on 3rd May 2017 to complete the construction of the school and, therefore, in view of the above matter, a lenient view was taken by the authorities.

¶13

This is a serious matter where the petitioner has embezzled the funds meant for construction of the school, he gave the affidavit before the concerned authority to complete the construction work. Instead of completing the construction he has approached this

¶14

¶15

Court by filing this petition, which is otherwise not maintainable. The concerned authority is directed to take penal, civil and disciplinary action which may be permitted under law against the petitioner for the recovery of the amount from him and criminal action for punishment against him including the lodging of a first information report.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this petition which lacks any merit and substance is, accordingly, dismissed."

¶17

Brief facts of the case is that the appellant-petitioner was Head Master in the Primary School Nagau, District Firozabad. Vide order dated 03.10.2009, the Zila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad has given additional charge of the School Kanya Purv Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Jalopura, District Firozabad to the appellant-petitioner for purpose of construction of the building of the school. The fund had been released from joint account of Head Master and Gram Pradhan in the year 2009. The said building had been constructed and after completion of building the Audit Team had visited and inspected the newly constructed building. After inspecting, the Audit Team had given its report. The appellant retired from service on 23.03.2017. In the year 2016, a complaint had been made by one Smt. Hemlata Saxena against the appellant. On the said complaint, Zila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad issued a letter dated 13.06.2018, by which it was directed to the appellant to reconstruct roof of the school building. The appellant has submitted an explanation of the letter dated 13.06.2018 to the Zila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad. In the said explanation, it is stated that the building has already been completed in the year 2009 and from 2009 maintenance of the building was assigned to the complainant Smt. Hemlata Saxena. It is further stated in the reply, after completion of the building, the appellant has no responsibility to maintain the same.

¶18

¶19

The appellant-petitioner filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge with following prayer:-

¶20

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2018 passed by respondent no.2.

¶21

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to stop the benefits of retirements without following the Rules and Regulations.

¶22

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned order."

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantpetitioner submits that building has already been constructed and completed in the year 2009 as per direction issued by the State Government. After completing the building, the Audit Team had inspected the building and found that the construction of building is according to norms and directions issued by the Government. Audit report dated 23.04.2012 is part of the paper book (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Due to lack of maintenance, the building of the school was damaged. The complainant was incharge of maintenance of the said building and she had failed to maintain the newly constructed building. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, without calling any explanation, the order dated 13.08.2018 had been passed after the superannuation of the appellant.

¶24

It is submitted that learned Single Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the finding to the effect that the appellant has embezzled the funds meant for construction of the school and directed the concerned authority to take penal, civil and disciplinary action against the appellant-petitioner without any evidence of the embezzlement on record. Learned Single Judge has also failed to consider that there is no enquiry

¶25

¶26

and no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before issuing letter dated 13.06.2018 by theZila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad with direction to reconstruct the roof of the building after superannuation in 2017. There was no occasion to learned Single Judge to pass order dated 21.08.2018 for lodging the F.I.R. or initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the appellant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that order passed by learned Single Judge is bad in law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶28

Per-contra learned standing counsel as well as Sri B.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the letter dated 13.06.208 issued by Zila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad with direction to reconstruct the roof as the appellant has not completed the construction of the building as per direction issued by the State Government time to time. There is no illegality in the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by Zila Basic Shikhsah Adhikari, Firozabad. The instant appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, it may be dismissed.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record available. 10. We are of the view that learned Single Judge has committed error to issue a direction to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant holding that he has committed embezzlement of the government fund which has been released for purpose of construction of the building of the school without any evidence in this regard on the record. There is no pleading that the appellant has not completed construction of the building as per direction of the Government. The building has already been completed in the year 2009.

¶30

¶31

Same was damaged due to non maintenance, therefore, it cannot be held that construction was not completed by the appellant. Finding of the learned Single Judge is perverse and without any material of record.

¶32

Accordingly appeal is allowed . The order impugned dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. Petition for writ preferred by the appellant-petitioner is allowed and the order dated 13.06.2018 is set aside. Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Asha

¶33

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Goverdhan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goverdhan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Madarsa Darul Uloom Hanifya Moiniya Islamiya and 2 Ord Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mahipat Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

C/M Baba Laxman Das Dawaba Rashtriya Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ganeshi Lal Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Setho Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Tehseen Fatima Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.