Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Kureel v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin./Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko.

Allahabad HC16 May 2024WRIA/1757/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty of censure and an appellate order rejecting the appeal against it. The court quashed the orders because the disciplinary authority acted on presumptions of financial loss contrary to the inquiry officer's finding that the department benefited from the work. This reflects a patent non-application of mind.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 25.11.2013 and 17.12.2014 imposing a penalty of censure and rejecting the appeal are quashed.

Dinesh Kumar Kureel Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37551

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1757 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Kureel

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin./Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Goswami,Arjun Prasad Mishra,Vinay Kumar Verma,Vinay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1. Heard.

¶8

Instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, as well as the order dated 17.12.2014, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶9

Vide order dated 25.11.2013, the petitioner, after due inquiry, has been imposed with a penalty of censure. Vide order dated 17.12.2014, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.11.2013 has been rejected.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer under the respondents, he had been issued a charge sheet dated 04.04.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, which was containing one charge. The inquiry proceeded and the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 30.06.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, gave the report that no loss has been occasioned to the department rather the work carried out by the petitioner has been done at 5 to 6 percent less than the departmental rates. Thus, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charge.

¶11

The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 26.11.2010, a

¶12

copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, issued a dissent note. The dissent note was issued on the basis of presumptions by contending that in case the complete procedure would have been followed then the department would have benefited on account of comparative rates. The petitioner claims to have submitted his reply on 21.12.2010, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, categorically pointing out that the Inquiry Officer has specifically concluded that no loss has been caused to the department by the conduct of the petitioner and consequently the dissent note issued on the basis of presumption by the Disciplinary Authority, does not require any action to be taken in pursuance thereof and that the inquiry report should be accepted.

¶13

The Disciplinary Authority vide the order impugned dated 25.11.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, after considering the reply of the petitioner, was of the view that as there has been grave financial irregularity on the part of the petitioner as such the petitioner should be imposed with a penalty of censure. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 17.12.2014 and hence the petition.

¶14

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Inquiry Officer had specifically concluded in his inquiry report dated 30.06.2008, after perusal of records, that no loss has been caused to the department rather the department has been benefited as the work has been carried out at the rates which were 5 to 6 percent below the departmental rates consequently in view of the conclusive finding given by the Inquiry Officer, the dissent note of the Disciplinary Authority which was based on presumptions and the said presumptions have also been made a basis by the Disciplinary Authority while

¶15

passing the punishment order dated 25.11.2013 which clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law and which also reflects patent non-application of mind.

¶16

Elaborating the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Inquiry Officer has conclusively arrived at a conclusion of no loss having been caused to the department after going through the entire records as well as considering the departmental rates which were applicable for the work that had been carried out by the petitioner. In contradiction to the same, the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded on the basis of presumptions that in case the work had been carried out on the basis of comparative rates then the department could have got better rates which presumption would continue to remain a presumption in the absence of conclusive finding having been given by the Disciplinary Authority and thus on this ground alone the impugned punishment order as well as the appellate order merit to be quashed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit has justified the order of the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that in case the petitioner would have invited the tenders for the said work which has been carried out by him, then the department would have received comparative rates which would have thus resulted in the work being carried out at lower rates and in the absence thereto, the punishment order has correctly been passed against the petitioner.

¶18

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶19

From the arguments as raised by the learned counsels for the

¶20

parties and perusal of record, it emerges that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer under the respondents he had been issued a charge sheet dated 04.04.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, which was containing one charge. The Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 30.06.2008 conclusively held that on account of the work carried out by the petitioner the department has been benefited as the work has been carried out at the rates which are 5 to 6 percent less than the departmental rates. The Disciplinary Authority, not agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer issued a dissent note and after considering the reply of the petitioner, has imposed a penalty of censure against the petitioner vide order impugned dated 25.11.2013 and the appeal filed against the said order has also been rejected vide order dated 17.12.2014.

¶21

Perusal of the dissent note as well as the punishment order dated 25.11.2013 indicate that the Disciplinary Authority has acted on the basis of presumptions inasmuch as both the dissent note and the punishment order indicate that the Disciplinary Authority was of the view that in case the work would have been carried out through tenders, then the department would have received comparative rates which could have resulted in the work being carried out at lower rates. Perusal of the dissent note as well as punishment order dated 25.11.2013 would indicate that both the orders are on the basis of presumption of the Disciplinary Authority vis-a-vis the specific finding given by the Inquiry Officer of no loss having been caused to the department as the work carried out was 5 to 6 percent below the departmental rates. Thus, the dissent note as well as punishment order dated 25.11.2013 which are based on presumptions would run contrary to the specific finding as given by the Inquiry Officer.

¶22

It could be that the Disciplinary Authority could have concluded on the basis of record that the work carried out by the petitioner had in fact resulted in financial loss to the department but again, as already indicated above, the order of punishment is based on presumption which is contrary to the specific findings given by the Inquiry Officer.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 25.11.2013 and 17.12.2014, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition, are quashed.

¶24

Consequences to follow.

¶25

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 A. Katiyar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Kureel v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin./Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Kureel v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin./Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko.

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

Shree Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Roli Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 6 Others

JC-706407-Y Prem Shankar Singh Yadav Vs the Union of India Rep by the Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence and 5 Others

Mohd. Fariyad Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Rural Devlp. and Ors.

Basdev Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest, Deptt. Environment,Forest and Climate Change Lko. and Others

Amardeep Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy.Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and 3 Others