Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34993 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh Jurel Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Pushpendra,Swarn Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vijay Manohar Sahai,J.
Hon’ble Vikram Nath,J.
Connect with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34992 of 2010.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh,
learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Sri V.K. Chandel,
learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 3.
Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 within
three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the petitioner
within two weeks thereafter.
Issue notice to the respondent no.4 as the allegations of malafide
have been alleged against him. Notice be issued through registered
post. Steps may be taken within a week. Office shall issue notice
fixing 30.7.2010.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no charge is
found to be proved against the petitioner but at the behest of the
Minister (Respondent No.4) the Principal Secretary was compelled
to pass the impugned order.
The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation
and was due to retire on 31.8.2007. Two days prior to his
retirement, he was placed under suspension on alleged charges of
serious irregularities in purchase of M.S. Pipes for the year 2003
vide office order dated 29.8.2007. By same order Sri Harmindar
Raj Singh, Principal Secretary (Agriculture) was appointed as the
Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on
29.2.2008. All the charges mentioned in the charge sheet were
found to be not proved in the inquiry report. The State
Government did not accept the said inquiry report and further by
office order dated 7.7.2008 appointed Sri Saurabh Chandra,
Principal Secretary, Rural Engineering Services as the Inquiry
Officer. The said Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated
24.10.2008 in which it was found that Charge Nos.4, 5 and 6 were
not proved, Charge Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 were partly proved and
Charge No.7 was proved. Based upon the said inquiry report, the
impugned order dated 16.4.2010 has been passed whereby 70%
pension of the petitioner has been deducted.
Both the inquiry reports have been annexed along with the
supplementary affidavit. As already mentioned above in the earlier
report dated 29.2.2008, none of the charges were found proved. In
the second inquiry report dated 24.10.2008 submitted by Sri
Saurabh Chandra, Charge Nos.4, 5 and 6 have been found to be
not proved, Charge Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 have been found to be partly
proved and Charge No.7 was found to be proved.
With regard to Charge No.1, the finding is that there was only
procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner and the charge as
alleged that the petitioner had not taken the approval of the
Minister was actually found to be not proved.
With regard to Charge No.2 the finding is that no fault could be
attributed to the single member of the purchase committee as the
decision to purchase the pipes was of the committee. However, the
only responsibility fixed on the petitioner was that he ought to
have clearly mentioned in the agenda item of the purchase
committee that quantity of pipes being purchased was for the
entire year.
The finding on Charge No.3 is that no financial loss was caused to
the State Government and as such the charge to that extent was not
proved. However, it was only found that the petitioner had
purchased the pipes required for period of more than 6 months.
The Charge No.7 was to the effect that the petitioner issued
purchase order 15.7.2003. Thereafter the said order was cancelled
by order dated 18.7.2003 and again fresh order of purchase was
issued on 22.7.2003. As such the petitioner had proceeded in an
arbitrary manner in cancelling and restoring the order of
purchase.The petitioner in his reply had submitted that the order
dated 18.7.2003 for cancelling the purchase order dated 15.7.2003
was issued upon the oral instructions of the Minister as the
Minister was interested in giving the purchase order to some other
party. However, when it was informed that the firm, to which the
order dated 15.7.2003 had been placed had already issued the bank
draft to the D.G.S.&D. for inspection on 17.7.2003 and the pipes
had already been made available for inspection and this could
result into complications, he restored the order dated 15.7.2003 by
passing fresh order on 22.7.2003. This charge has been found
proved only for the reason that the petitioner could not provide any
material / evidence to show that the cancellation had taken place
upon the instructions of the Minister. Apparently there could be no
evidence of oral instructions given by the Minister.
With regard to Charge No.8 the finding is the same as in Charge
No.3 i.e. for purchase of material for more than period of six
months.
There is no finding under any of the charges that there had been
any financial irregularities on the part of the petitioner. There is no
charge of any misappropriation of the Government money. There
is no charge or finding with regard to any undue favour having
been extended to any party for personal gains by the petitioner.
The only charge found proved is that there were certain minor
procedural irregularities.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
based on the said inquiry report, a false FIR was also got registered
under influence of the Minister against the petitioner by the
present Chief Engineer under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC on
the allegations that the petitioner had interpolated the records
causing heavy financial loss to the Government. The Division
Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court had already passed an
order that the petitioner shall not be arrested.
We are thus convinced that prima facie the order of punishment is
perse bad in law and suffers from the vice of malice. We have
already passed another detailed order in Writ Petition No.44992 of
2010, filed by the petitioner, wherein the order of punishment of
30% reduction of pension was passed on an inquiry report in
which none of the charges had been found proved, on a clear
misreading of the report.
Until further orders of this Court the effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 16.4.2010, passed by the State
Government / Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department,
U.P., Lucknow filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall
remain stayed.
List for further hearing on 30.7.2010. On the said date the Minister
and the Principal Secretary shall appear before this Court and file
their personal affidavits. Further the Principal Secretary shall
explain in his counter affidavit as to why he has passed the
impugned order without even reading the inquiry report and
whether while functioning as Principal Secretary he is passing
orders in such a fashion in every matters before him.
Order Date :- 15.6.2010
pk