Dismissed

Brij Bhushan Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2021WRIA/8811/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a punishment order imposing reversion and censure due to irregularities in appointment approvals. The court examined whether holding two inquiries constituted double jeopardy or violated procedural rights like oral hearing, finding the charges distinct and the decision valid.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the finding that no merit existed in the challenge to the punishment order and that the inquiries were legally sustainable.

Brij Bhushan Maurya Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8811 of 2020 Petitioner :- Brij Bhushan Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Reserved on 29.01.2021 Delivered on 02.03.2021

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondent.

¶7

The present petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby major punishment of reversion to the original post and censure entry had been awarded to the petitioner. The challenge to the punishment order is based on assertions that a disciplinary inquiry was initiated on 17.5.2006 against the petitioner, while he was working on the post of District Inspector of Schools in District Basti, in the matter of appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees in Intermediate Colleges. In the inquiry report dated 2.6.2009, the petitioner had been exonerated of the charge. However, disagreeing with the inquiry report, the State Government had passed the punishment order dated 14.3.2012, which had been challenged in Writ petition no.21916 of 2012 wherein this Court had called for the counter affidavit. It is stated that the aforesaid writ petition is pending adjudication before this Court.

¶8

It is then submitted that without taking note of the pending disciplinary proceedings, at the relevant point of time, disciplinary authority had initiated another inquiry vide order dated 17.5.2006. With the appointment of the inquiry officer on 22.12.2006, the second chargesheet dated 15.4.2009 was served on the petitioner. The charges in the first chargesheet dated 17.5.2006 and second chargesheet dated 15.4.2009 are placed as follows.:-

िदिनांक-17 मई2006

vkjki ls [;ka &1

;g fd vkius fofHkUu fo|ky;ksa ds izcU/kd@iz/kkukpk;Z }kjk fu; q Dr fd;s x;s fuEufyf[kr r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa ds osru Hkqxrku dh lgefr ,oa vuqeksnu fuEufyf[kr fooj.kkuqlkj iznku fd;k gS%&

¶13

|Dz0
la0|deZpkjh dk uke|in|fo|ky; dk uke|vuqeksnu vkns'k| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|2|3|4|5| |1|Jh f'ko dqekj|fyfid|,e0ih0ch0ih0 ckfydk
b0 dk0 gjS;k] cLrh|ft0fo0fu0] cLrh ds i=kad
5134&35@02&05 fnukad 11-11-
04| |2|Jh jke cq>kjr|prqFkZ Js.kh|fdlku b0 dk0 Hkkuiqj
cLrh|ft0fo0fu0] cLrh ds i=kad
12525&26@02&03 fnukad
24&2&2003| |3|Jh v'kksd dqekj|prqFkZ Js.kh|rnSo|rnSo| |4|Jherh xk;=h nsoh|prqFkZ Js.kh|,e0ih0ch0ih0 ckfydk
b0 dk0 gjS;k] cLrh|ft0fo0fu0] cLrh ds i=kad
5138&39@04&05 fnukad 11-11-
04|

¶14

'kklukns'k la[;k& 3446@15&13&2000&9¼11½@94 fnukad 19-12-2000 ds }kjk O;oLFkk dh x;h gS fd osru vuqeU;rk ls lEcfU/kr leLr izdkj ds izdj.k ¼U;k;ky;ksa izdj.kksa dks NksM+dj½ ij fopkj djus ds fy, e.My Lrj ij la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa lfefr xkfBr dh x;h gSA ;g lfefr izdj.kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr viuh laLrqfr l{ke vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr djsxhA lfefr ds fu.kZ; ds mijkUr gh fdlh uohu fu;qfDr ij Hkqxrku djus dh vuqeU;rk tkjh dh tkrh gSA vki }kjk iz'uxr fu;qfDr;ksa ds izdj.k esa fufgr izfdz;k dk vuqikyu u djrs gq, lh/ks vuqeksnu iznku fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vki 'kklukns'k dk mYy?kau djds LosPNkfjrk cjrus ds fy, Li"V :i ls nks"kh gSA

¶15

िदिनांक 15 vizSy 2009

¶16

vkjki ls [;ka & 1

¶17

vkius vius dk;kZy; ds i=kad 2441@2004&05 fnukad 11-08-04 nokjk ,e0ih0ch0ih0 dU;k ba0 dk0] gjS;k] cLrh esa fyfid ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq vuqefr iznku dhA mDr vuqefr ds ifji{; esa laLFkk nokjk Jh f'kodqekj dk p;u lgk;d fyfid ds in ij fd;k x;kA mDr p;u dk vuqeksnu vkius vius i=kad 5134&35@2004&05 fnukad 11-11-04 nokjk iznku fd;kA vkius mi;qZDr vuqefr ,oa vuqeksnu nsus ls iwoZ erd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr jktkKk la[;k 4001@15&7&2¼1½@90 fnukad 30-7-92 ds vuq:i erd vkfJrksa ds lek;kstu ,oa vf/kla[; in ij dk;Zjr fyfidksa ds lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh u dj lh/kh HkrhZ nokjk dh xbZ fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu iznku fd;k gSA vkids mDr vuqeksnu ,oa osru Hkqxrku vkns'k ls jktkdks"k ij nksgjk O;;Hkkj c<+k gSA

¶18

mDr ds vfrfjDr jktkKk la[;k 3446@15&13&2000&9¼11½@94 fnukad 19-12-2000 }kjk xfBr e.Myh; lfefr dh laLrqfr izkIr fd;s fcuk gh lh/ks osru Hkqxrku dk vkns'k fn;k gS ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSA

¶19

mDr vkjksi dh iqf"V gsrq fuEu vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dh Nk;k izfr;ka layXu gS%&

¶20

¶21

1& fyfid ds in ij fu;qfDr dh vuqefr laca/kh vkidk i= fnukad 11-8-04

¶22

2& fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu ,oa osru Hkqxrku laca/kh vkidk vkns'k fnukad 11-11-04

¶23

3& e`rd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr laca/kh jktkKk fnukad 30-07-92

¶24

4& e.Myh; lfefr dh laLrqfr izkIr fd;s tkus laca/kh 'kklukns'k fn0 19-12-2000

¶25

vkjki ls [;ka & 2

¶26

vki nokjk fuEu fooj.k ds vuqlkj v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr laLFkkvksa esa lh/kh HkrhZ nokjk fu;qDr ifjpkydksa dk vuqeksnu ,oa osru Hkqxrku dk vkns'k fn;kA osru Hkqxrku dk vkns'k nsus ds iwoZ erd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr laca/kh jktkKk fnukad 30-7-92 ds vuq:i erd vkfJrksa ds lek;kstu ,oa vf/kla[; lftr inkas ij fu;qDr erd vkfJrksa dk lek;kstu fjDr inksa ds izfr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZA erd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr;ksa ls lacaf/kr xfBr lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 16-12-02] 25-01-03 ,oa 25-08-03 ds vuqlkj tuin esa ifjpkjd ds inksa ij erd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr;k vf/kla[; inksa ds izfr dh a xbZ Fkh ftldk lek;kstu ugha gqvk FkkA vkids mDr vuqeksnu ,oa osru Hkqxrku dk vkns'k nsus ls jktdks"k ij nksgjk O;;Hkkj iM+k gSA mDr ds vfrfjDr jktkKk fnukad 19-12-2000 ds lkis{k xfBr e.Myh; lfefr dh laLrqfr izkIr fd;s fcuk gh lh/ks osru Hkqxrku dk vkns'k fn;k gS ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSA

¶27

dz0la0	fu;qDr ifjpkjd dk uke	laLFkk dk uke	vuqeksnu dk i=kad ,oa fnukad
1	2	3	4
1	Jh Kku izdk'k	ghjkyky jke fuokl bZ0 dk0 [kyhykckn lardchjuxj	13494&95 fnukad 26-3- 03
2	Jh v'kksd dqekj	^^	13506&07 fnukad 26-3- 03
3	Jh nsosUnz flag	^^	13504&05 fnukad 26-3- 03
4	Jh vjfoUn dqekj	^^	13502&03 fnukad 26-3- 03
5	Jh vksadkj	^^	13496&97 fnukad 26-3- 03
6	Jh ykyeu izlkn	^^	13500&01 fnukad 26-3- 03
7	Jh ukxsUnz dqekj	lardchj vkpk;Z jke foykl ba0 dk0 exgj] lardchjuxj	212&13 fnukad 19-4-03
8	Jh fln~/kjkt	^^	210&11 fnukad 19-4-03
9	Jh jke cq>kjr	fdlku ba0 dk0 Hkkuiqj cLrh	12525&26 fnukad 24-02- 03
10	Jh v'kksd dqekj	^^	^^

¶28

It is contended that the inquiry report dated 17.2.2011 was submitted by the inquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty without adhering to the procedure of inquiry. No oral inquiry was held by the inquiry officer by fixing date, time and place of the inquiry.

¶29

On receipt of the inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 20.9.2011 was

¶30

¶31

issued to the petitioner to which reply was submitted by him on 2.12.2011. The punishment order dated 1.10.2020, however, had been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner.

¶32

It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the second inquiry based on the charges mentioned in the chargesheet dated 15.4.2009, could not have been initiated, inasmuch as, two parallel inquiry proceedings on the same set of charges cannot be held. The first inquiry initiated with the issuance of the chargesheet dated 17.5.2006 had culminated in passing of the punishment order dated 14.3.2012. On the same set of charges, inflicting another punishment by the order dated 1.10.2020 had resulted in double jeopardy. The second inquiry report as also the punishment order, thus, are causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and are liable to be quashed.

¶33

Sri Neeraj Tripathi learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State-respondent, however, submits that a perusal of the chargesheet dated 17.5.2006 indicates that the matter of irregularity in appointments of one Class-III and three Class-IV staff committed by the petitioner was subject of inquiry, whereas in the second chargesheet, definite charges were framed with regard to the financial approval of one post of Clerk and of ten Class-IV employees in Intermediate Institutions in district Basti in the year, 2003. The charges in the chargesheet dated 17.5.2006 and 15.4.2009 are different and, moreover, no such objection had been raised by the petitioner at the time of initiation of the inquiry. The charge sheet dated 15.4.2009 leveling two charges, noted above, had not been challenged at the relevant point of time. There is also no challenge to the inquiry report in the present petition and the assertions of the petitioner that no oral inquiry was conducted by fixing date, time and place of inquiry would be of no benefit to him.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, noticing the charges in two chargesheets issued to the petitioner within a gap of three years, it is found that though the charges in both chargesheets

¶35

¶36

were relating to the irregularities committed by the petitioner while posted as District Inspector of Schools, Basti, in the matter of appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees, but only charge in the first charge sheet was that the petitioner had issued orders for release of salary to four employees, one clerk and three Class-IV employees of Intermediate Institutions in Basti without seeking approval of the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Joint Director of Education. The approval order dated 11.11.2004 issued by the petitioner was one of the evidences in the said inquiry.

¶37

Whereas the second chargesheet dated 15.4.2009 though contained charges relating to the approval letter dated 11.11.2004 and appointment on Class-III and Class-IV posts, but definite charge had been framed therein that the permission to make appointment on one post of Clerk in M.P.B.P Girls Intermediate College, Harraiya, Basti and Class-IV employees were wrongly granted by the petitioner without adjustment of the appointees under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on supernumerary posts and that the said act of the petitioner had resulted in causing additional burden on the State Exchequer. In addition to the same, the release of salary at the ends of the petitioner to the appointee on Class III post without getting approval of the Regional Committee has also been narrated as one of the irregularities. The charge no.2 relates to illegal approval/permission for appointment and release of salary to ten Class-IV employees including those whose names have been mentioned in the first chargesheet dated 17.5.2006.

¶38

This Court may note that though the charges in the first and second chargesheets are relating to the same appointment but the language of definite charge nos.1 and 2 in the second charge sheet dated 15.4.2009 shows that the scope of inquiry in the second chargesheet was different than that of the first chargesheet.

¶39

This Court may further note that the second chargesheet had been issued to the petitioner on 15.4.2009, while the first inquiry was pending. The

¶40

¶41

appropriate course for the authority, at the relevant point of time, was to club both the inquiries. The petitioner, however, did not raise any dispute nor challenged the chargesheet or the inquiry at any stage of the proceedings. The ground that the second chargesheet could not have been issued during continuance of the first inquiry and challenge to the punishment order dated 1.10.2020 based on the plea of double jeopardy, therefore, cannot be accepted.

¶42

There is one more aspect of the matter that the scope of inquiry is determined with the framing of charges against the delinquent employee and the same cannot be enlarged by the inquiry officer without issuance of a supplementary chargesheet. The second inquiry initiated on the report of the Finance Controller, Secondary Education, Directorate U.P. Prayagraj was relating to financial irregularity committed by the petitioner by adopting wrong procedure whereas the scope of the first inquiry was confined to the irregularity in the procedure of approval for appointment of Class-III/Class-IV employee.

¶43

This Court, therefore, finds that both the inquiries could have been held independently on the definite charges framed in the chargesheets duly served upon the petitioner. At no stage of the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner had raised any dispute relating to any infirmity.

¶44

A perusal of the inquiry report of the second chargesheet indicates that the chargesheet dated 15.4.2009 was served upon the petitioner on 22.4.2009, he, however submitted his reply on 25.1.2010. The inquiry report further indicates that several queries was made from the petitioner and the report had been submitted after considering the written reply given by the petitioner. The said inquiry was primarily based on the documentary evidences, copy of which had been provided to the petitioner alongwith the chargesheet, itself.

¶45

Prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner for the alleged denial of opportunity of oral hearing, could not be shown to the Court. Moreover,

¶46

¶47

there is no prayer for quashing of the chargesheet or the inquiry report. The feeble submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with regard to the non compliance of the procedure of oral inquiry are of no help.

¶48

The punishment order under challenge had been passed after considering reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner on the service of the inquiry report. The reasoning given in the punishment order for imposing major punishment upon the petitioner cannot be said to be faulty. The admitted fact of the matter is that the petitioner had granted prior approval for appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts without adjustment of Direct Recruitees working on the supernumerary posts in District Basti. The adjustment of appointees under Dying-in-Harness Rules was made on 16.12.2005 whereas the prior approval for fresh appointment was granted on 11.8.2004. The financial approval for release of salary of the fresh recruitees was also given by the petitioner on 11.11.2004 without seeking approval from the Regional Level Committee, as was required in the Government Order dated 19.12.2000. No plausible explanation could be offered by the petitioner in deviating from the procedure.

¶49

Reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in Kaptan Singh vs State of U.P and another reported in 2014 (8) ADJ 16 is of no benefit to the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the said case, the Court had summoned the relevant record of inquiry on the plea of the petitioner therein that opportunity of oral hearing had not been granted. In the instant case, no such request had been made on the part of the petitioner and, moreover, prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner has not been shown.

¶50

In view of the above discussion, no merit is found in the writ petition.

¶51

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶52

Order Date :- 2 . 3.2021/Harshita

¶53

Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Justice Sunita Agarwal Agarwal Date: 2021.03.02 13:22:37 +05'30'

Brij Bhushan Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Bhushan Maurya 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Madhusudan Ray Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Guddu Kumar Purbey Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Other