Allowed

Pramod Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021WRIA/5991/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition challenging recovery orders against a Junior Engineer for theft of electric materials. The court quashed the orders as lacking authority of law and violating natural justice principles, despite no criminal case or disciplinary action being initiated against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 08.08.2018 and the order dated 15.3.2021 are set aside.

Pramod Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5991 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Bind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Pandey,Pankaj Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Mrs. Rishu Mishra, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Dubey, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 08.08.2018 and 15.3.2021 whereby an amount of Rs. 2,33,739/has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner relating to theft of electric materials at 132 K.V. Sub-station, Nagina, Bijnor.

¶8

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in the respondent no. 3 and was posted at 132 K.V. Sub-station Nagina, Bijnor. It is alleged that on 28.6.2018 some incident took place in which certain materials stored in the store room of the said Sub-station were allegedly stolen. The petitioner being the Junior Engineer at the said Sub-station lodged an FIR on 29.6.2018 against unknown persons which was registered as Case Crime No. 0213 of 2018. It is on record that police investigated the case and final report was submitted on 6.7.2018 (Annexure5 to the writ petition) to the effect that it appears that the informant of the FIR, the petitioner had

¶9

deliberately with a view to siphon off the goods had given a false information and on investigation the information was found to be wrong. The report under section 182 IPC was suggested to be initiated against the petitioner. It is common ground that no case under section 182 IPC has been registered against the petitioner. An enquiry was also conducted by the respondents which resulted in an enquiry report (Annexure-7) wherein it was recorded that after enquiry the Enquiry Committee reached the conclusion that no one can be held accountable for the theft, however, it was clear that the Junior Engineer, the petitioner herein, was slack in his duties. It is again common ground that no further proceedings either disciplinary proceeding or any other proceedings have been initiated or instituted against the petitioner.

¶10

On 08.08.2018, an office memorandum was issued indicating that certain goods were stolen from the store house of the 132 K.V. Sub-station Nagina on 28.6.2018 and in the report laxity at the instance of the petitioner came to surface and on the said two grounds an order for recovery of amount of Rs. 2,33,739/- was held to be payable by the petitioner. A consequential order dated 15.3.2021 was passed directing the recovery of the said amount from the salary and allowance of the petitioner. The said two orders are challenged in the present writ petition.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders are not sustainable for reasons more one.

¶12

She argues that in the final report no conclusion has been arrived that the theft was committed or got committed by the petitioner, in the enquiry conducted by the respondents also no culpability of petitioner or any other person was established, she further argues that there is no provision in the service rules to enable the respondents to pass the order of the nature impugned in the present writ petition. She lastly argues that even otherwise the orders have been passed without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus are violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶13

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein stand has been taken that the order of the recovery was passed based upon two documents i.e. the final report and the internal enquiry. It is admitted that no other enquiry or disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. No other source of power to issue for recovery of the amounts in the manner in which they are sought to be done by means of the impugned order was shown.

¶14

Having considered the final report, the enquiry report and statutory Rules governing the services of the petitioner, I have no option to come at conclusion that the order of indictment and recovery dated 08.08.2018 and 15.3.2021 are without any authority of law and wholly perverse and are based on misreading of the documents and are also in violation of principles of natural justice as it is clear from the perusal of the said

¶15

orders.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 08.08.2018 (Annexure 1) and the order dated 15.3.2021 (Annexure 2) are set aside.

¶17

The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.

¶18

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 Puspendra

Pramod Kumar Bind v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Bind 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

Neema Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mayank Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhuvneshwar Dayal Tyagi Vs Union of India and Another

Pratibha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others