Raj Kumar Sangam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology and Mining U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21124

¶3

Court No. - 18

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8131 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Sangam

¶6

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology And Mining U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Dubey,Ayush Kumar Verma,Saurabh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 23.7.2024 passed by Secretary, Geology and Mining, Civil Secretariat, U.P. Lucknow, whereby he has been awarded punishment of censure as well as withholding one increment for one year.

¶10

A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give all the consequential service benefits to the petitioner and further consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of senior mining officer from the date juniors to the petitioner have been promoted.

¶11

3.The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a mining inspector on 2.3.1993 and was promoted to the post of mining officer on 1.7.1998.

¶12

An inspection was carried out by a joint committee of Directorate of Geology and Mining Department at district Kaushambi on 29.12.2019. During inspection, 23 vehicles were intercepted, out of which 8 vehicles belong to district

¶13

2

¶14

Chitrakoot. On the basis of this inspection, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, vide letter dated 15.1.2020, contained in Annexure No.3, has recommended for disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as well as his transfer to some other place.

¶15

A charge sheet dated 22.7.2020 was served on the petitioner. Mr. G.P. Singh, Geologist of Geology and Mining Directorate, U.P. Lucknow was appointed as enquiry officer. Subsequently, due to demise of Mr. G.P. Singh, another enquiry officer Mr. Amit Kaushik, Senior Mining officer was appointed as enquiry officer.

¶16

In the charge sheet, two charges were framed. Charge No.1 was to the effect that in the inspection carried out by the inspecting team on 29.12.2019, 23 vehicles were intercepted and they were found transporting sub-mineral ballast/stone without transport documents or with suspicious transport documents. Out of these, eight vehicles belong to Chitrakoot district which were found to have suspicious transport documents. This shows that the petitioner has failed to effectively control transportation of illegal mining in district Chitrakoot. As an evidence, the inspection report dated 30.12.2019 was annexed.

¶17

Charge No.2 was to the effect that despite repeated letters written by the District Magistrate as well as the directions issued in meetings by the District Magistrate for effectively controlling illegal mining, the petitioner has failed to keep effective control on illegal mining and thus, such an inaction is indicative of his laxity in official duties, negligence towards government work, indifference, arbitrariness and

¶18

3

¶19

indiscipline, and is in violation of Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 for which he is responsible.

¶20

The petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 25.9.2020 to the enquiry officer. Although no oral enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, he found both the charges not proved and submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority.

¶21

The disciplinary authority vide order/notice dated 12.11.2021 has recorded his dissatisfaction from the recommendation of the enquiry officer regarding charge No.1. As regards charge No.2, he agrees for exoneration of the petitioner. The reason assigned in the disagreement letter is extracted below :

¶22

-1 - “आरोप सख्यां क से म्बन्ध मं शासन स्तर पर अवधारिरत भि�न्न मते

¶23

आरोप संख्या -1 के सम्बन्ध में स्पष्टीकरण व उपलब्ध जांच आख्या तथा संगत अभि�लेखों के परीक्षण से विववि+त होता है विक -

¶24

(1) आरोविपत अधिधकारी के स्पष्टीकरण वि+नांक 05.08.2020 में यह आपत्ति0 की गयी है विक " आरोप पत्र में उल्लेख नहीं विकया गया है विक 22 वाहनों में 08 वाहन जनप+ - धिचत्रकूट से सम्बन्धिन्धत है।

¶25

उक ्त क सम े ् बन ् ध मे ं उल ्ल ेखनीय है व ि क आरोप संख ् या -1 े मे ं स ् पष ्ट उल ् ल ि त ्ति खत है व ि क जनप+ - कौशाम ् बी मे ं जांच क +ौरान क े ु ल ेु 23 वाहन व ि बना पर ि रवहन प ्र पत ्र क अथवा संव े ि +ग ् ध पर ि रवहन प ्र पत ्र क पाये े ेे गये , ल ्लि जसमे ं से 08 वाहन जनप+ - ध ि चत ्र क ू ट से सम ् बन ्धि न ् धत है। इस सम ् बन ् ध मे ं जांच +ल की आख ् या ू व ि +नांक 31.12.2019 आरोप की पुव ि ष ्ट हेतु पठनीय साक ्ष् य है , ल ्लि जसमे ं वाहन , उपखव ि नज , उसकी मात ्र ा पर ि रवहन प ्र पत ्र की न ्धि स ् थध ि त , जनप+ / पट ्ट ेधारको ं का व ि ववरण उपलब ् ध है। इस प ्र कार उपरोक ्त आपत ्ति 0 व ि नराधार है तथा प ्र श ्न गत आरोप का उ0र +ेने से बचने का प ्र यास व ि कया गया।

¶26

(2) आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा स्वयं व ल्लिजलाधिधकारी के माध्यम से अवैध परिरवहन रोकने के त्तिलए बैरिरयर लगाने हेतु पत्र विन+ेशालय में �ेजे जाने का उल्लेख विकया गया है। उक्त के सम्बन्ध में आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा कोई अभि�लेखीय साक्ष्य नहीं प्रस्तुत विकया गया है , ल्लिजससे बचाव कथन पुविष्टकारक साक्ष्य के अ�ाव में स्वीकायH नहीं है।

¶27

(3) आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा यह बचाव कथन विकया गया है विक विन+ेशालय की जांच टीम द्वारा पकड़े गये वाहनों के सम्बन्ध में उनके द्वारा खान अधिधकारी , कौशाम्बी से सम्पकH विकया गया। यह �ी बचाव कथन है विक उनके द्वारा खान अधिधकारी , कौशाम्बी , प्र�ारी अधिधकारी - क्षेत्रीय कायाHलय , इलाहाबा+ से �ी अवैध परिरवहन रोकने के सम्बन्ध में बात की जाती थी।

¶28

उक्त के सम्बन्ध में आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं विकया गया है। अतः उक्त बचाव कथन तथ्यात्मक नहीं होने से अस्वीकायH है।

¶29

(4) आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा स्वयं के तथा खविनज वाहनों / डम्फरों के लोकेशन पर नजर रखने वाले व्यविक्तयों के उनके आवास तथा कायाHलय एवं ल्लिजलाधिधकारी कायाHलय के आस पास तथा

¶30

4

¶31

हर चौराहे पर खडे होने तथा आरोविपत अधिधकारी के व्यस्तता ( कायाHलय में कायH करने �ोजन करने , बैठकों में होने , मा० मंत्री के आगमन में �ागी+ार होने के समय ) के कारण अवैध परिरवहन करने में अन्तर्ग्रHस्त होने की बात कर अवैध परिरवहन होने को स्वीकार विकया गया है।

¶32

उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है विक आरोविपत अधिधकारी द्वारा खविनजों के अवैध परिरवहन के तथ्य से इन्कार नहीं विकया गया है , और अवैध खविनज परिरवहन को अपने शासकीय विवभि�न्न कायS में व्यस्त रहने के +ौरान जहां तहां से लोकेशन पर नजर रखने वालों की अन्तर्ग्रHस्ततावश अवैध परिरवहन होने की अपरिरहायHता इंविगत की गयी है।

¶33

अतः प्रश्नगत आरोप संख्या -1 के सम्बन्ध में जांच अधिधकारी के विनष्कर्षH से असहमत होते हुए प्रस्ताविवत भि�न्न मत के अनुसार आरोप संख्या -1 प्रमाभिणत होना स्थाविपत होता है। "

¶34

Along with the show cause notice, copy of the enquiry report was also annexed and the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 20.3.2023. After submission of reply, the disciplinary authority did not appear to have passed any order and kept the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is alleged that certain persons who were junior to the petitioner have been promoted in the meantime. Specific pleading in this regard has been made in para 30 of the writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner then filed a writ A No.6982 of 2023 praying for a direction to the authorities to pass a final order in the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.9.2023 directing the authorities to pass final order within two months. Although, the order was passed by this court on 21.9.2023, however, the final order in the enquiry has been passed on 23.7.2024, i.e. after about 10 months of the order.

¶36

5.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while deferring from the recommendation of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has not recorded any finding to the effect that the charge No.1 against the petitioner has been proved from the record. Everything has been presumed

¶37

5

¶38

against the petitioner which is contrary to record. It is submitted that out of total 23 vehicles intercepted by the officers of the Mining Directorate of district Kaushambi, eight vehicles were belonging to district Chitrakoot. The petitioner has been punished only account of prejudice of the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot who on the basis of the inspection report dated 30.12.2019 has recommended disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer is quite reasoned and therefore, he has not found both the charges proved against the petitioner and has exonerated him. It is submitted that the vehicles have been intercepted at district Kaushambi. None of the drivers or any other witness has participated in the enquiry proceedings. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the finding with the enquiry officer are without any evidence; rather only on an inference and presumption without there being any evidence to show that those eight vehicles containing the sub mining material, in fact, belonged to district Chitrakoot. None of the drivers’ statement has been taken during enquiry. No evidence was led in the disciplinary proceedings to prove the allegation of illegal mining having been found in district Chitrakoot and complicity of the petitioner in such illegal mining. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority while punishing the petitioner has been made against him only at the dictate of the District Magistrate who is prejudiced to the petitioner. In this context, the learned counsel has relied on Union of India versus H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 (relevant paras 22 and 23). Paras 22 and 23 of the judgment are extracted below :

¶39

6

¶40

“ 22.We are not prepared to accept this contention. Malafide exercise of power can be attacked independently on the ground that it is mala fide. Such an exercise of power is always liable to be quashed on the main ground that it is not a bona fide exercise of power. But we are not prepared to hold that if mala fides are not alleged and bona fides are assumed in favour of the appellant, its conclusion on a question of fact cannot be successfully challenged even if it is manifest that there is no evidence to support it. The two infirmities are separate and distinct though, con- ceivably, in some cases, both may be present. There may 47- 2 S. C. India/64 be cases of no evidence even where the Government is acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the conclusion of the Government not supported by any evidence may be the result of mala fides, but that does not mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorary will not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why we are not prepared to accept the learned AttorneyGeneral's argument that since no mala fides are alleged against the appellant in the present case, no writ of certiorari' can be issued in favour of the respondent.

¶41

23.That takes us to the merits of the respondent's contention that the conclusion of the appellant that the third charge framed against the respondent had been proved, is based on no evidence. The learned AttorneyGeneral has stressed before us that in dealing with this question, we ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting with the determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is shown that the view taken by he appellant is a reasonably possible view, this Court should not sit in appeal over that decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt absolutely sound. The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondent's case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can be made against the respondent that charge No. 3 was proved against him? In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which dealt with the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondent's grievance is well-founded because, in our opinion, the find- ing which is implicit in the appellant's order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him is based on no evidence.

¶42

6.Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the contention, however, could not deny the fact that except the inspection report dated 30.12.2019, no other evidence was led in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶43

7.I have considered the submission and gone through the record.

¶44

7

¶45

It is not disputed that although charge No.1 was framed for the alleged interception of 23 vehicles which were transporting sub-mineral ballast/stone, out of which eight vehicles were registered in district Chitrakoot, however, there is nothing on record to show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led to prove the fact that the material which was carried out by the vehicles was, in fact, originated from district Chitrakoot or the petitioner was directly or indirectly responsible for the same.

¶46

None of the owners of the vehicles, drivers or other employees of the inspecting team was produced during course of disciplinary proceeding. The reason assigned by the disciplinary authority while giving show cause notice dated 12.11.2021 and disagreeing with the opinion of the enquiry officer is based on the only evidence, i.e. inspection report dated 30.12.2019 which appears to have been wrongly typed in the show cause notice as 31.12.2019. No other evidence has been discussed by respondent No.2 while giving the notice dated 12.11.2021 or while passing the impugned punishment order. Admittedly, no oral evidence from any member of the team which conducted the inspection on 29.12.2019 was led. In the show cause notice, while disagreeing with the recommendation of the enquiry officer, the only reason assigned in para 4 is that the allegation that it is not mentioned in the charge sheet that out of 23 vehicles, 8 vehicles belong to district Chitrakoot is baseless and is a device to avoid giving reply to the charges. Thus, it appears that without any cogent evidence, recommendation of the enquiry officer has been turned down by respondent No.2

¶47

8

¶48

and punishment order has been passed only at the instance of the District Magistrate.

¶49

This court further finds that no reason has been assigned by the State while filing counter affidavit as to why in spite of the order passed by this Court dated 21.9.2023 (supra), the disciplinary proceedings as directed by this court were not concluded within two months. Thus, the allegation of mala fide and deliberately keeping the enquiry proceedings pending for more than three years just to spoil the service career of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside.

¶50

8.As narrated above, the only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the objection of the petitioner is baseless and he has tried to evade the reply to the charge. It has been assumed that the petitioner was having active complicity in illegal mining on the ground that he has sent some letters for erecting barriers to stop such illegal act. The punishment order also appears to have been passed on the ground that the petitioner has corresponded with the District Magistrate to stop illegal mining and has also contacted mining officers of district Kaushambi as well as Prabhari Adhikary, Regional Office, Allahabad to stop mining and an inference has been drawn against the petitioner that he is having complicity in the illegal mining.

¶51

9.In view of what has been discussed herein above, the impugned punishment order dated 23.7.2024 (supra) having been passed only on the basis of the inspection report and on no other evidence, and no cogent reason has been assigned while charge No.1 has been considered to be proved by

¶52

9

¶53

respondent No.2, it cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside.

¶54

Needless to say, the consequential benefits as a result of quashing the punishment order shall follow, as per law.

¶55

10.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 kkb/

¶57

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Sangam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology and Mining U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Sangam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Geology and Mining U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sajivn Yadav Alias Ram Sajeevan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Braj Kishor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Baboo Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Food, Lko. and 2 Others

Ragini Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikash Sewa Evam Pushtahar Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Subhash Chandra Shukla and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rajya Sampatti Vibhag Lko. and Another

Sachin Kumar, P.N.O. 162542383 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others