Disposed

Rajendra Mandal v. Collector and Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2019WRIA/51897/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief order dismisses the petition against departmental punishment and recovery imposed on the petitioner for a theft occurring while he was on duty as a Chaukidar. The court observes that others were also punished. The petitioner's prayer regarding post-retirement dues is disposed of without explicit relief or deadline.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the prayer to direct respondents to consider post-retirement dues was recorded, but no specific timeline or order was granted.

Rajendra Mandal Vs Collector and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51897 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajendra Mandal Respondent :- Collector And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajeshwar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State respondents.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has discharged his duties as Chaukidar, and therefore, the impugned order awarding punishment equivalent to 1/6th amount of goods stolen, cannot be justified. The recovery of Rs. 2,65,628/- is being made from the petitioner.

¶6

In paragraphs 10, 13, 15 & 20 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated as under:-

¶7

"10. That the contents of para 12 of the writ petition are not accepted. The Store Incharge is Store Keeper Sri Nathuni Miyan, but not the Assistant Engineer (Inquiry Officer). Store Keeper is also found guilty and he has been charge sheet and an recovery of 1/3rd part of the total value of the theft is being recovered from him also. During the theft period only one Assistant Engineer was posted at the workshop. He was overall incharge of the total workshop, which includes machine shop, fabrication shop, moulding shop etc. In this way an Assistant Engineer was not only incharge of the store. He has to supervise the whole workshop. Superintending Engineer Workshop Circle Lucknow had appointed the inquiry officer to the Assistant Engineer. An Assistant Engineer is fully compatible to conduct the inquiry of a fourth class employee.

¶8

13. That the contents of para 15 of the writ petition are denied inquiry was conducted and he was found guilty and dereliction in his duties. Government loss has been occurred. Government has taken the decision to take departmental action. Since the petitioner is a fourth class employee hence a recovery of Rs. 2500/- on a monthly installment totally in 107 installments has been ordered to recover. This recovery is equally distributed among involved all the fourth class employee and the petitioner has been reinstated in the service.

¶9

15. That the contents of para 17 of the writ petition are denied. The responsibility of theft has not been fixed only on two persons as alleged in the writ petition. The responsibility has been fixed on all the Govt. Chaukidar as Sri Rajendra Mandal, Sri Amar Nath Singh (the petitioner), Sri Shyam Sunder, Sri Ram Bahadur, Sri Ram Narain, Sri Nathuni Miyan (Store Incharge), and M/s Imperial Security Service, Allahabad who has provided Security Gaurds as named in the petition.

¶10

20. That the contents of para 22 of the writ petition is not correct. As per

¶11

State Government employee rule 1956 clause 3(2) the petitioner should performed his duties with full devotion, integrity and dignity to safeguard the Govt. property but he has not done. Hence a huge loss to the Govt. has occurred for which petitioner is fully responsible."

¶12

Since, it is undisputed that the petitioner was on duty as Chaukidar on the date of theft, which caused loss to the State, and therefore, punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified. It is not the fact that only the petitioner has been awarded punishment, but others also who were found responsible have been punished.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner last submits that although the entire amount fixed under the impugned order has been recovered and yet post retiral dues of the petitioner has not been paid by the respondents. If it is so, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and if it is found that any post retiral dues are payable to the petitioner, then the same shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order along with a representation.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Arif

Rajendra Mandal v. Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Mandal v. Collector 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

Brajesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saoo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heera Lal Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Prabha Jatav Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shyam Narayan Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Others