Dismissed

Krishnamohan Mall v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2021WPIL/204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL petition seeking recall of an order reinstating a debarred technical assistant. The bench held that the respondent had no role in the technical assessment or costing estimate of the wash-away incident, justifying his reappointment, and dismissed the recall application filed by the State.

What did the court decide?

The recall application filed by the State under Civil Misc. No. NIL of 2021 was dismissed and the order dated 19.04.2019 recalling the reappointment of Respondent no.4 stands restored.

Krishnamohan Mall Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 204 of 2019 Petitioner :- Krishnamohan Mall Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Niwash Yadav,Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶4

Shri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

¶5

Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akansha Sharma appears for the State and files Civil Misc. Recall Application No. NIL of 2021, today in the court.

¶6

The petition is on Board for consideration of Civil Misc. Recall Application No. NIL of 2021 whereby the State seeks recall of order dated 19.4.2019, wherein as urged that inadvertently in place of Rs. 3.073 lacs, Rs. 3073 lacs find mention which led the co-ordinate Bench to observe that-

¶7

"In a project of such a big amount amount, a petty person, a Technical Assistant could not only be responsible and once finding is that there is misuse and defalcation of Government Funds, without involvement of Senior Officers, this could not have been possible. It appears that District level authorities are acting in collusion to protect senior level authorities."

¶8

These observation, it is urged has led to direction to Vigilance Department to conduct the enquiry.

¶9

Evidently, the Public Interest Litigation is for a direction to cause an enquiry in respect of re-appointment of respondent No.4 and take necessary action in pursuance to enquiry made by the District Magistrate, District Mau on 25.08.2009, 03.10.2009 and 05.03.2018.

¶10

It is borne out from the pleadings that the District Magistrate, Mau during inspection conducted on 22.08.2009 found that on Bintolia Link Road one culvert that was constructed by fund of MGNREGA was got washed away due to flood within 45 days of construction; accordingly, a technical enquiry was conducted wherein the Chief Development Officer submitted his report on 24.8.2009 to District Magistrate wherein he found five persons, namely, Babu Lal Ram, Block Development Officer, Fatehpur Mandav, Sunil Kumar, Junior Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Krishnakant Mall, Technical Assistant, Surendra Yadav, Gram Panchayat Adhikari and Sunaina Singh, the then Gram Pradhan, Dubari as responsible for the said loss of

¶11

revenue.

¶12

It is further borne out from the record that these persons were issued charge sheet and the order of termination of contract of respondent no.4 from the post of Technical Assistant was passed on 29.09.2009. Though, the order was not challenged by respondent no.4 however, later he moved an application before District Magistrate, Mau seeking review of the order on the ground that the construction agency started the work without informing him and he is not involved in the costing of the estimate. The District Magistrate forwarded the application to Chief Development Officer on 11.10.2009 with a direction to decide the same as per law. In pursuance thereto, the Assistant Engineer, Rural Development Department submitted the report on 21.10.2009 wherein it was stated that as the construction was not verified by the Assistant Engineer and the Technical Assistant, it would be appropriate to recover the loss caused to the State Exchequer from the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Mau vide order dated 09.03.2010 closed the proceedings for recovery from respondent no.4.

¶13

It is also borne out from the record that the District Magistrate later vide order dated 21.05.2018 issued direction to recover the loss of revenue caused to the State Exchequer due to inaction on the part of Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari from the then Gram Pradharn Smt. Sunaina Singh as well as Shri Surendra Yadav, the then Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The aforesaid amount, was deposited by both these persons on 11.06.2018 in the Bank Account No. 433802010805926 in Union Bank of India. On these contentions, learned AAG appearing for the State justified the reinstatement of respondent no.4.

¶14

In view whereof when the order of reappointment of Respondent no.4 is tested on these facts, it cannot be faulted with as he had no role to place in respect of technical assessment/estimabe of the subject work.

¶15

Consequently, while recalling the order dated 19.04.2019, the petition is dismissed .

¶16

The Recall application is disposed of. Office to give a regular number to the recall application.

¶17

No Costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.3.2021 Kirti

¶19

(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)

Krishnamohan Mall v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamohan Mall v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Satyawati and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ravindra Kumar and 10 Others Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Smt. Raj Kali Devi @ Raj Kali Vs District Magistrate and Another

Aneesh Ahmad Vs State of U P and Another

Bhola Vs Arbitrator/ District Magistrate and 3 Others

Bhola Vs Arbitrator/ District Magistrate and 3 Others