1. Petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Section Officer in the Registry of this Court and has been censured by the disciplinary authority. Entry in that regard has been affirmed with rejection of subsequent representations. Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was posted as Section Officer in the Tax Section. On 28.3.2014 a Division Bench of this Court passed following orders:-
"We have been noticing for the past four weeks that files are not being sent by the section to the court room of those cases which are listed in the cause list. Today also, the following files of Writ Petitions have not been sent to the court room. It is 11.30 A.M. in the morning and the files of these cases have not been received.
1. Sl.No.2 WP No.10706 of 2006 alongwith with connected WP No.9692 of 1983 and WP No.21565 of 2005.
2. Sl.No.11 Connected WP No.38353 of 2013.
3. Sl.No.28 Connected WP No.45502 of 2007.
4. Sl.No.29 Connected WP No.24512 of 2003 & WP No.40097 of 2007.
5. Sl.No.30 Connected WP No.48814 of 2007.
6. Sl.No.36 Connected WP No.33408 of 2012.
The Registrar General is directed to hold an enquiry in the matter and take action against the erring officials.
A copy of the order shall be supplied by the Bench Secretary to the Registrar General today itself."
3. In compliance of the above observations an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner admitted the fact that he was posted in the Tax Section. The only explanation submitted by petitioner was that he had deputed one Shyam Ji Srivastava, Review Officer, as Peshi Clerk to arrange dispatch of files to the Court concerned, and that he had no knowledge of the fact that on 28.3.2014 these six files were not sent the Court concerned. He pleaded complete ignorance of the incident and pleaded for the proceedings to be dropped as he had a spotless career so far. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry against the petitioner and the Review Officer and submitted his report holding the petitioner liable for lack supervision in his capacity as Section Officer. It was in these circumstances that a notice was issued to petitioner to submit reply to the findings returned in the enquiry report No.50 of 2014. After considering the reply of the petitioner following entry has been awarded to petitioner on 15.2.2016:-
"He, in the Departmental Enquiry No.50/2014 was held guilty for not placing the records of Writ Petition No. 10706 alongwith Connected Writ Petition No. 9692 of 1983 and the Writ Petition No. 21565 of 2005, Connected Writ Petition No.38353 of 2013, Connected Writ Petition No. 45502 of 2007, Connected Writ Petition No.24512 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.40097 of 2007, Connected Writ Petition No.48814 of 2007 and Connected Writ Petition No.33408 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Court for hearing on 28.3.2014.
He is censured for this act of misconduct."
Upon an appeal filed by petitioner on 30.3.2016 following orders have been passed by the competent authority on 27.5.2016:-
"In the facts of case and finding returned that he did not supervise the work properly, there is no occasion to intervene."
A representation made thereafter has also been rejected vide following orders passed on 2.11.2016:-
"Perused the office note and the representation of Sri Lal Ji Sonkar, Section Officer, praying therein to recall the punishment order of censure dated 15.2.2016 imposed on him in the departmental enquiry.
No force is found in his representation, hence the same is declined."
Aggrieved by these orders, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Review Officer in his statement before the enquiry officer had clearly admitted that he was responsible for sending of the concerned files, and therefore, no action ought to have been taken against the present petitioner. It is also urged that the explanation submitted by petitioner to the show cause notice has not been dealt with, while considering the petitioner's representation. Reliance is placed upon judgments of this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2018 (5) ADJ 587, and in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and others, reported in (2015) 3 UPLBEC 1939, to submit that recording of reasons for rejecting appeal is an essential requirement of a valid adjudication and in its absence the order itself would be rendered unsustainable. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1794, to submit that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and in the absence of it the order itself becomes lifeless.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Ms. Bushra Marium, learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention of the Court to the cross-examination of petitioner, in which he has admitted that before leaving the office he was not taking any report from the Peshi Clerk about all relevant records having been sent to the Court concerned. It is also stated that petitioner as a Section Officer was required to supervise the working of Peshi Clerk and the lapse on part of the petitioner in arranging dispatch of Court files to the concerned Court Room is serious enough, which warrants censure entry to be awarded to them.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record.
7. It is not in issue that being the Section Officer the petitioner was responsible to supervise the functioning of Tax Section. Case files listed on the particular date in the concerned Court were required to have been sent by the Section. Though such work was performed by the Peshi Clerk but ultimately the responsibility was of the petitioner as the Section Officer to ensure dispatch of such files to the Court concerned. In the facts of the present case it is admitted that petitioner was not even aware of the fact that number of files were not sent to the Court on a particular date. This was otherwise not an isolated incident as has been recorded by the Writ Court. Such lapses having existed for the last four weeks, the Court was compelled to direct initiation of enquiry in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, would not be justified in contending that as responsibility of sending the file to Court was of the Review Officer, as such he cannot be held responsible. Being the Section Officer it was obligatory upon the petitioner to have supervise the working of Peshi Clerk. His ignorance of the incident and the admission otherwise in his cross-examination that he was not making any query with regard to dispatch of all files from his section makes it apparent that petitioner was lax in supervising his office. The censure entry awarded to petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be without any material.
8. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that observations contained in para 7 would not be of much assistance, inasmuch as those observations were made in the context of proceedings pending before the Court under Section 378(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the facts of the present case a detailed procedure has been followed before awarding censure entry to the petitioner. The Court has examined petitioner's grievance on merits and it is found that the materials do exist on record justifying imposition of censure entry. The order passed on petitioner's appeal is in fact the communication of the decision taken by the Acting Chief Justice of the Court after due examination of materials placed on record.
9. In view of the observations made above this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the orders passed in exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021 Anil (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)