Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17805 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mritunjay Mohan Sahai
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Sri M.M.Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has assailed the impugned order dated 23.10.2021, passed by respondent no.3-Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, by which an amount of Rs.71,668/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner in installments of Rs.5,000/- per months by deduction from his salary.
Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that earlier also the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.4428 of 2021 challenging almost identical order of recovery which was passed against the petitioner as no reason was assigned for rejecting the reply/ explanation of the petitioner against the show cause notice.This Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 quashed the order of recovery dated 01.02.2021 and remanded the matter to the authority to take a fresh decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the order impugned, again the competent authority has not recorded any finding specifying the reason for concluding that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned is illegal, non-speaking and is not sustainable in law.
It is a also contended that the petitioner is a confirmed employee and, therefore, any recovery by way of punishment can be affected against the petitioner by following the procedure as contemplated under Regulations 61 to 68 of The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) (Appointing Authorities) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1987), accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable.
Sri M.M.Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is evident from the order impugned that elaborate reasons have been recorded by the competent authority in holding the petitioner guilty and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. He submits that as the Corporation has suffered loss due to the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned is correct in the facts of the present case and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Be that as it may, it is evident from the order impugned that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was duly replied by the petitioner denying the charges levelled against him in the show cause notice. The competent authority being dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, passed the order of recovery of Rs.71,668/-. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced here-in-below:-
"शश कमललश पससद, वररष ललखसकसर दसरस पसततत कसरण बतसओ ननटटस कस पटतउतर एवव पतसवलश मम उपलबध समसत अटभललखख कस अधनहसतसकरश दसरस पररशशलन करनल कल पशचसत पसयस गयस टक शश पससद, वररष ललखसकसर दसरस कसरण बतसओ ननटटस कल पटतउतर मम कनई ऐसस ठनस तथय/पमसण पसततत नहह टकयस गयस हह, जजसकल आधसर पर उनहम दनषमतक टकयस जस सकल । अतएव शश कमललश पससद, वररष ललखसकसर, ततकसलशन उपनगरशय टडपन, लखनऊ कलत वतरमसन मम दलवररयस टडपन, गनरखपतर कलत, अपनल कतरवयख एवव दसटयतवख कस समतटचत टनवरहन न करनल कल जलए पपणर रप सल दनषश हह। अतत मस० उचच नयसयसलय, इलसहसबसद दसरस पसररत टनणरय टदनसवक 27.07.2021 कल समसदर मम उपनगरशय टडपन, लखनऊ कलत मम तहनसतश कक अवजध कल ददरसन डशजल कल मद मम टनगम कन हहई हसटन र० 71,768.00 (इकहतर हजसर ससत सद अडसठ मसत) कक ररकवरश शश कमललश पससद, वररष ललखसकसर, ततकसलशन उपनगरशय टडपन, लखनऊ कलत वतरमसन मम दलवररयस टडपन, गनरखपतर कलत कल वलतन सल र० 5,000/- पटतमसह टकयल जसनल कस आदलश पसररत टकयस जसतस हह। तदनतससर पकरण टनसतसररत टकयस जसतस हह। "
Perusal of the relevant extract, quoted above of the impugned order, clearly shows that the competent authority has not recorded any reason in brushing aside the reply/objection of petitioner.Though, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to defend the order impugned, but he could not demonstrate from it that the competent authority has recorded any reason to conclude that reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory.
Further, it is worth to mention that a procedure has been contemplated under Regulations 61 to 68 of the Act, 1987 which the respondent authorities are obliged to adhere before imposing any penalty. In the instant case, the order impugned does not reflect that the procedure contemplated under Regulation has been followed by the respondent authorities before passing the order impugned.
In such view of the fact, the order impugned dated 23.10.2021 passed by respondent no.3-Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpuris not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order after following the due procedure as contemplated under Regulations 61 to 68 of he Act, 1987.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 NS