Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65087 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Nagendri Devi and others Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Agrawal, Advocate, for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by legal representatives of Sri Sukh Lal, who was working as Accountant in the Office of District Magistrate, Pilibhit. Pursuant to a departmental inquiry conducted after issue of charge- sheet dated 13.07.1991, when charges were found proved, punishment of removal was imposed vide order dated 21.07.1992 and the appeal was rejected by Commissioner by order dated 06.02.1998. The aforesaid order of punishment and appellate order were challenged by Sri Sukh Lal in Claim Petition No. 252 of 1999 and during pendency of said Claim Petition, Sukh Lal died on 28.04.2004 leaving behind petitioners as his legal heirs. Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but on the quantum of punishment held that punishment is disproportionate to the charges found proved and, therefore, directed competent authority to pass another order of punishment. Pursuant thereto, fresh order has been passed by Appellant Authority and therein deceased employee has been denied arrears of salary for the period of removal till his death, i.e. from 21.07.1992 till 28.04.2004. Denial of arrears of salary by order dated 17.05.2008 was challenged by petitioners in Claim Petition No. 785 of 2009, but the same has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that once punishment was not found commensurate to the charges found proved, respondents were liable to pay entire arrears of salary though could not dispute that deceased employee was found guilty of misconduct and on that aspect Tribunal has not interfered at all.
4. In view thereof, it cannot be said that denial of arrears of salary to deceased employee is arbitrary or illegal. Hence, we do not find any manifest error in the impugned judgment of Tribunal so as to warrant interference.
5. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 PS