Allowed

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC31 May 2023WRIA/7646/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled a recall order and allowed the writ petition. The court quashed recovery and disciplinary orders against the petitioner, holding that the impugned actions were based on incorrect appreciation of facts since the amount was secure in dual locks and the dacoity lacked mens rea, especially after proceedings against the co-accused were withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders dated 18.12.1999, 13.02.2000 & 24.08.2006; Writ petition succeeded.

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:39597

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7646 of 2006

¶4

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas And 4 Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chauhan,Akhilesh Pratap Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surendra Kumar Verma

¶8

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶9

C.M.A. No.6 of 2023 - Application for Recall of order dated

¶10

18.01.2023

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in application for recall of order, the application is allowed .

¶13

Accordingly, the order dated 18.01.2023 is hereby recalled.

¶14

The writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶15

Order on Writ Petition

¶16

Heard Sri HGS Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh and Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri RP Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - State.

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved with orders dated 18.12.1999, 13.02.2000 & 24.08.2006 contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition and the appeal and review have been rejected.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery order was passed against the petitioner mainly on the ground that he was not authorised to retain the amount under law for a period beyond three months. According to the charge sheet issued to the petitioner contained as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, charge No.3 itself indicates that the amount could have been retained under lock for a period of three months.

¶19

His next submission is that the petitioner has retained the amount only from 04.11.1995 and an incident of dacoity has taken place on the night of 17/18th 11.1995 and an amount of

¶20

Rs.18,824.40p. was taken away by the dacoits from Cash Chest. The petitioner and the then Block Development Officer - Kripa Shanker Mishra were charge sheeted and disciplinary proceedings were drawn against them. The then BDO - Kripa Shanker Mishra has been placed under suspension and in the inquiry, partial charge was proved against him, whereas in the inquiry held against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has recorded specific finding to the effect that the cash was kept in doubly lock and one key remained with the then BDO and the other key was with the petitioner. The then BDO did not sign the necessary papers on account of which the cash could not be paid to the persons concerned. The punishment of the then BDO - Kripa Shanker Mishra, in such circumstances, does not seem to be based on correct appreciation of facts. The authorities have tried to give clean chit to Kripa Shanker Mishra - the then BDO although he was partially responsible while holding the charge of double lock.

¶21

The petitioner as well as the the BDO - Kripa Shanker Mishra, both of them can not be blamed for the dacoity having taken place in the night of 17/18th. 11.1995. The criminal intent and activity depends upon criminal mind of a particular person. The dacoity which has taken place, cannot be said to be a design perpetuated by the petitioner and Kripa Shanker Mishra. The circumstances lead to such situation that the incident of dacoity could not have been avoided by the petitioner and for such criminal activity, the petitioner and Kripa Shanker Mishra could not have been proceeded with as there was no mens rea involved on the part of these persons. The dacoity was an outcome of criminal act for which nobody has any control nor anybody can be blamed for the same.

¶22

In the event, the disciplinary proceedings have been withdrawn against the then BDO - Kripa Shanker Mishra and recovery proceeding has also been withdrawn against him, therefore, there is no occasion to continue the same against the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 18.12.1999, 13.02.2000 & 24.08.2006 contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.

¶24

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 31.5.2023 Adarsh K Singh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Gramin Vikas and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Arvind Jain Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy. to Govt. of U.P. Medi-

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Agriculture Dept. and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Dixit Vs Pubjab National Bank through Its Chairman -Cum -M.D. and 4 O

Atar Singh S/O Ghasi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Rural Dev. and Anr.

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs Lucknow Development Authority

Dr.Kashi Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Medical Education and 2 Ors.