Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61020 of 2012. Case: Krishna Bhadauriya Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61020 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Brij Raj Singh, S.R. Singh and Devendra Kumar Singh, Adv. and For Respondents: C.S.C., Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Ayank Mishra and Baleshwar Chaturvedi,Adv. |
| Judges | Suneet Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2014 (11) ADJ 122 |
| Judgement Date | July 15, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Suneet Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ayank Mishra as well as Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was posted as Office Assistant-III in the office of Executive Engineer, Computer Billing Service Centre, Agra w.e.f. April 2006 to March 2007 and when the petitioner was posted at Chitrakoot after six years from the date of posting at Agra, he was issued show-cause notice dated 30.4.2012 alleging that while the petitioner was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Computer Cilling Service Centre, Agra, the petitioner had committed illegalities inasmuch as irregularities pertaining to electricity bill and money collected from the customers was not deposited, forged receipts were prepared which resulted in the alleged loss of Rs. 17,05,305/-.
2. It was further alleged that bungling was done in the output data and in other documents. An investigation was carried out by Sri Ram Bhajan Singh, Inspector (Economic Offences Wings U.P. Lucknow), and the report was examined by the Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Agra and it was decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice stating that after lapse of six years show-cause notice was issued and the details of the allegations have not been furnished and further the investigation report is not enclosed with the show-cause notice. After receiving the reply, petitioner's services was terminated by respondent No. 4 by order dated 18.5.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by a five line cryptic order.
3. Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.5.2012 passed by respondent No. 4, Superintendent Engineer, Vidyut Vitaran Mandal, Banda and order dated 11.10.2012 passed by respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Banda Region Banda, petitioner has approached the Court.
Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that neither any show-cause notice nor enquiry report nor any charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner and no enquiry officer was appointed, the procedure prescribed under U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 was not followed and the authority has illegally exercised his powers under Rule 3(iv)(v) which wholly is ex parte and illegal. The termination order is merely eye wash in order to protect the other officers of the Corporation.
4. Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, in support of his submission, has relied upon (i) Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 167; (ii) Dr. Subhash Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (1) ESC 279 (All) (DB), (iii)...
To continue reading
Request your trial