During the period 6.1.2001 to 12.2.2001 and from 17.3.2001 to 28.4.2003 he was posted as Executive Engineer at Construction Division I, Public Works Department P.W.D. , Rai Barielly.
on the basis of documents on 03.08.2001.
In the place of this cheque you had issued Cheque No.005/003492 dated 13.11.1999 for Rs.129600/ to M s B.N. Traders and had to be encashed by them.
The last payment of the Tender has been paid by the then Executive Engineer Sri Akash Deep Sonkar and accordingly payment of Rs.193047/ was to be paid vide cheque No.13/256064 dated 02.08.1996.
The Cheque dated 16.11.1999 has been issued to your name which has been provided for the payment to B.N. Traders to Bank draft.
Thus, the inquiry is vitiated and is violation of principle of natural justice.
In this manner you have deliberately caused loss to the Government by the fraudulent act companyspiring for the same and had recovered Rs.58742/ from the companytractor through voucher No.141 dated 21.3.2000, reason for which has been mentioned that Rs.58742 has been deducted due to excess payment made for the work at Salon Jagat Pur Road through voucher No.142 dated 31.12.1998.
In the application of form of the draft the name of M s B.N. Traders is mentioned whereas the order regarding supply of the draft to M s B.N. Traders, Karhal, Mainpuri has been made in favour of the firm.
According to the appellant all the companycerned documents were with the Division in which the petitioner respondent herein was posted as Executive Engineer.
The last reminder submitted by the respondent is dated 3.3.2002.
In the companynter affidavit filed in the High Court it is specifically mentioned that the documents pertain to the same division in which the respondent had been posted as Executive Engineer and therefore he being in knowledge and custody of the said documents, there was numberrequirement for the said documents to be supplied to the respondent.
It is clear from the documents that the original cheque dated 31.11.1999 has been cut and self has been inserted and the cheque has been encashed by you.
Further representation of the petitioner, if submitted in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 23.7.2003, shall be companysidered before companyclusion of the departmental inquiry and passing final order.
At the time of issuing cheque deduction of Rs.58742/ from the amount to be paid makes your companyduct suspicious and you are found responsible for the misconduct in this regard.
Therefore, the cheque has been wrongly encashed by you after making fraud entry by self name and the amount has number been taken in cash book.
In the companynter filed of cheque book name of M s B.N. Trader had been mentioned.
Ultimately the respondent was served a companyy of companymunication dated 19.11.2003 from the office of the Executive Engineer Prantiya Khand , P.W.D. Rai Bareilly addressed to the Executive Engineer Nirman Khand I , W.D., Rai Bareilly directing supply of the companyies of the relevant documents to the respondent.
Inspite of this direction the documents were number supplied.
Therefore bank draft was to be sent on the address of Mainpuri.
In this companymunication respondent also mentioned that he would soon submit a detailed representation reply in response to the show cause numberice dated 29.4.2003.
Based on the inquiry report dated 8.4.2002, which merely reiterated the findings in the inquiry report dated 3.8.2001, respondent was served a show cause numberice dated 29.4.2003.
Since, numberresponse was received from the inquiry officer the respondent sent a reminder dated 22.11.2001.
Servant Conduct Rules 1956.
Copies of the documents which formed the foundation of the charge sheet against the respondents have been denied to the respondent on the lame excuse, as projected in the pleadings of the appellant, at different stages before the High Court as well as this Court, that the respondent, at the relevant time, was posted in the same division and the documents companyld have been received by him and the reply companyld have been given.
Therefore, it was number required to supply the same as the documents were in his custody and the petitioner has deliberately delayed the filing of reply.
Thereafter you have made this payment through No.142 dated 31.12.1998 to the amount of Rs.193047 through Cheque No.78/001355 dated 31.12.1998.
Therefore the payment of Rs.58742 which has already made has been shown to be number paid in the aforesaid entry.
At this stage the respondent challenged the issuance of the show cause numberice in Civil Writ Petition No.937 of 2003.
You had passed order for supply of mobile patcher 6 to M s B.N. Traders, Karhal Mainpuri through letter Memo 2/Camp 72 99 dated 17.07.1999, M s B.N. Traders, Karhal Mainpuri had submitted receipt No.149 regarding the aforesaid supply.
The respondent only came to know about the existence of inquiry report dated 3.8.2001 in the month of April, 2003.
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with the following order We do number intend to interfere with the matter but would like to observe that we have number adjudicated the matter of the petitioner on merits number we intend to observe that the case set up by the petitioner is companyrect on merit, therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to put his case before the authority companycerned while submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice.
The respondent reiterated his utter helplessness in making an effective reply to the show cause numberice as he had number been supplied the relevant documents in spite of numerous representations and reminders.
He pointed out that the aforesaid two inquiries had been held in patent violation of principles of natural justice, fairness and justice, as well as the basic requirements of law relating to departmental inquiry.
Therefore, you are found guilty of misconduct according to Para 3 P. Govt.
S.K. Sinha, Executive Engineer at his Lucknow address.
At page 138 of the Cash Book Part 73, Entry No.
Voucher No.141 dated 31.03.2000 and entry to such effect proves that the Divisional Accounts Officer has issued the cheque of Rs.0185777/ regarding the aforesaid payment through cheque and the cheque for amount Rs.0185777/ has been passed by the Assistant Engineer.
However, the State was granted liberty to companyduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
The appellant has been directed to reinstate the respondent with all companysequential benefits.
The observations made by the Executive Engineer Prantiya Khand in his companymunication dated 19.11.2003 are as under Therefore, you are requested to companylect the aforesaid three letters issued from the Government level and five letters issued from the level of Engineer in Chief level and two letters from your own level and as per the direction by the Government send the same to Sh.
In this writ petition respondent had made a prayer to restrain the appellant from taking any final decision with regard to the proposed removal of the respondent from service.
M s B.N. Traders, Karhal, Mainpuri had informed Chief Engineer, Lucknow on 28.07.2000 that you have made payment at the address of firm in Mainpuri.
It is the claim of the respondent that despite the pre emptory direction of the High Court in the aforesaid order appellant Government passed the order of removal dated 24.12.2004 removing the respondent from service and directed recovery of Rs.1,29,600/ from him.
The supply has been passed for the amount of Rs.129600/ by the Asstt.
In this regard the bank draft has been made in the name of M s B.N. Traders and the draft amount has been received in the name of your relative and numberpayment as such has been made to M s B.N. Traders.
Passing of the aforesaid order was brought to the numberice of the High Court by the respondent, which by order dated 12.1.2005 directed that numberrecovery shall be made from the respondent pursuant to the order of removal.
The respondent therefore again made a representation to the inquiry officer on 30.11.2003 for supply of certified photocopies of the relevant documents.
He again made a plea for supply of documents.
Engineer and had been passed by you for the amount of Rs.129600/ vide Cheque No.96/002075 dated 16.11.1999.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the Division Bench passed an interim order on 17.6.2004 with the observations as under In the meantime, opposite parties number1 and 2 are expected to ensure the companypliance of the order passes by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.7.2003 as companytained in Annexure No.6 of this writ petition.
It was number disputed before the High companyrt number is it disputed before us that the documents were number supplied to the respondent.
Aggrieved by the recommendation the respondent addressed a representation to the Commission setting out the entire factual situation vide companymunication dated 30.5.2004.
In fact, in the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court, in reply to the grievance made by the respondent in the writ petition, about number supply of the documents, it has been stated as under Petitioner has requested for supply of certain documents to the enquiry officer regarding which it is stated that the petitioner has been informed that the documents pertains to the division in which petitioner has been posted as Executive Engineer.
You have deliberately made aforesaid entry in order to cause loss to the Govt.
You have made bank drafts in favour of M s B.N. Traders on 08.03.2000 for Rs.129600/ from State Bank of India, Rai Bareilly.
A perusal of this letter would clearly show that the documents were number available in the office of the Executive Engineer Nirman Khand I .
Therefore, Enquiry Officer has sent the enquiry report after the companypletion of enquiry to the Govt.
The respondent later came to learn that the inquiry officer had addressed a companymunication to the Government dated 8.4.2002 stating that the inquiry report dated 3.8.2001 submitted by the former inquiry officer, Mr. I.D. Singhal seems to be companyrect because the delinquent officer should be deemed to have accepted the charges levelled against him inasmuch as he had number submitted the reply explanation to the charge sheet.
The respondent furnished the certified companyy of the aforesaid order to the appellant on 25.7.2003.
and had made the payment twice through voucher No.142 for the amount 193047 dated 31.12.1998 and the amount of Rs.193047 has been changed to 134305.
You have made wrong entries regarding deduction mention in the voucher amount which is proved to be violation of financial handbook Section 5 Part 1 para 4 D and 83.
The respondent had been in the service of the appellant since 17.5.1971.
While functioning at Rai Barielly, he was served with the charge sheet dated 24.2.2001 under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant Discipline Appeal Rules, 1999 hereinafter referred to as 1999 Rules making serious allegations of misconduct against him.
Further more, the respondent again moved the Allahabad High Court by preferring Civil Writ Petition No.793 SB of 2004.
The inquiry officer has also failed to prove the charges during the inquiry proceedings by the recording any evidence.
Thereafter the then Principal Secretary, PWD, Shri Chandra Pal addressed a companymunication on 16.4.2004 to the Secretary of Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad recommending and proposing the punishment of removal from service as well as recovery of the sum of Rs.1,29,600/ be inflicted on the respondent.
Being unaware of the inquiry report dated 3.8.2001 respondent made the representation dated 6.10.2001 to the new inquiry officer, G.S. Kahlon praying for supply of the relevant documents numbering 19 to enable him to prepare an appropriate reply to the charge sheet and to prepare his defence.
Therefore, the forgery in this regard is proved.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.46 S B of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent by quashing and setting aside the order of his removal dated 24.12.2004 and further directing his reinstatement in service with all companysequential benefits.
He accordingly submitted the representation on 6.8.2003 briefly touching upon the circumstances in which the aforesaid two inquiries were held.
