Partly allowed

Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2018WRIA/48298/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination from service post-embezzlement. Court held departmental inquiry was illegal for failing to prove exhibits and following proper inquiry procedure. Order quashed. Petitioner granted continuous service benefits and pension arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order quashed. Entitlement granted to benefits of continuous service and post-retiral dues including pension arrears.

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48298 of 2000

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Mohan,Jamwant Maurya,Rajesh Pathak,Sharad Kumar Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 19.9.2000 passed by respondent No.2, District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Mathura, whereby he has been terminated from service from the post of Syahnavis. Regarding the charge of embezzlement petitioner was put to criminal trial and also subjected to departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings, in reply to the memo of charge served on the petitioner dated 12.7.2000, petitioner replied by his letter dated 26.7.2000 that the departmental proceedings may be put in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial.

¶6

The respondents neither replied to the notice nor stayed the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings were concluded and the impugned punishment order dated 19.9.2000 has been passed by the District Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Mathura dismissing the petitioner from service and directing recovery of Rs.6,40,313/- from him.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the criminal trial he has been acquitted and an appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal by the State.

¶8

A perusal of the inquiry report dated 22.4.2000 submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.2 shows that the procedure of inquiry provided under Section 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 have not been followed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically pointed to non compliance of sub rule 10 of Rule 7 which provides that where the charged Government Servant does not appears on the dates fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceedings inspite of service of notice on him or having knowledge of the day, the Inquiry Officer shall

¶10

proceed with the inquiry exparte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of the witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet in the absence of the charged Government Servant.

¶11

A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the documents produced before the Inquiry Officer were not proved by departmental witness or any document was exhibited by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has acted like a departmental representative and relied upon the departmental records without proof of the documents by the authors or signatory of the documents, therefore, inquiry against the petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law and the impugned order dated 19.9.2000 passed on the basis of inquiry is illegal and is, hereby, quashed.

¶12

Petitioner has retired from service and there is no question of reinstatement, however, in view of the allegations of serious nature of embezzlement of public funds, the petitioner shall only be entitled to benefits of continuous service and post retiral dues only and the pension shall be calculated on the basis of benefits of continuous service and be paid to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation along with arrears of pension. This exercise shall be done within six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order before the respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Mathura.

¶13

The writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.3.2018 T. Sinha

Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Ors.

Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and others

Jagveer @ Jaggo Vs State of U.P.

Baij Nath Prasad Vs the Zila B.S.A. Gorakhpur and Others

Ashok Singh Vs D.I.O.S. Ghazipur and Others

Mahesh Narayan Mishra and 89 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.