This writ petition has been filed essentially against the order dated 24.1.2015 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh.
The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on contract basis vide order dated 26.9.2000. Thereafter he was by various orders continued on the post from time to time; meaning thereby his contract was extended. Thereafter from time to time whenever any charge was levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner replied to them all and ultimately the matter culminated in the order dated 25.8.2014 wherein it was found that there was no financial irregularity. Thereafter again certain enquiries were conducted and by the order dated 7.11.2014 also it was found that the petitioner was not in any manner involved in any irregularity and was not found to be guilty.
However, from the record it appears that an Enquiry Committee was constituted for conducting an enquiry into the irregularities in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Project, District - Pratapgarh for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13 under the Chairmanship of Sri Harendra Veer Singh, the then Project Director. In the enquiry which was conducted by the Committee, it was found that the petitioner had not prepared certain documents as per manual. He had also not prepared bank assessment details and had not provided the bills/vouchers/advices of Rs. 1,89,28,84,833/-. It was further found that cheques from serial nos. 734201 to 734300 though were used their record was not available. The enquiry conducted by the Committee further showed that Rs. 20,99,506/- were withdrawn through cash/bearer cheques from the same series of cheque books. Still further it was found that Rs. 12,65,23,766/- were also withdrawn but the withdrawal was not entered in the cash book. Similarly, cheques of Rs. 8,10,38,684/- were issued but the same had not been presented for encashment and the receipt of these cheques were also not available on the record. Further it was found that Rs. 4,83,86,748/- were deposited in the bank on different dates which were also not recorded in the cash book. It was also found that Rs. 1,65,750/- were sent from the Project through Bank Draft but those amounts had not been deposited in the Project Account. For all these irregularities, an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner and it was advised that his contract be terminated.
Thereafter, the petitioner, on 24.12.2014, wrote to the Secretary, Basic Education Officer that a fresh enquiry be conducted and all the documents be looked into afresh.
The State Project Officer, thereafter, wrote to the District- Magistrate/Chairman, District Education Project Committee, Pratapgarh, to take action against the petitioner on 30.12.2014.
The petitioner upon coming to know about the communications dated 17.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 again wrote to the Finance Controller, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, U.P., Lucknow, to allow him to explain the correct position.
Further it has been stated that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to explain his stand as he desired to explain the contents of the communication dated 17.12.2014 and without conducting any enquiry etc. the order dated 24.1.2015 was passed by which the petitioner's contract was terminated.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 24.1.2015, though put to an end to the contract, was casting a stigma on the petitioner which was also punitive and, therefore, before passing of it, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner submits that the District Basic Education Officer before passing the order should have conducted a full fledged enquiry.
Further submission is that the District Basic Education Officer should not have simply relied upon the directions as were issued on 17.12.2014 by the Secretary, U.P., and should have applied his independent mind after a full fledged enquiry.
Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer have submitted that the order dated 17.12.2014 was passed after the petitioner was granted an opportunity to produce all the documents and, therefore, no fresh enquiry was required.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Basic Education Officer Sri P.K. Singh Bisen and learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that the order dated 24.1.2015 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. If the order dated 17.12.2014 is perused then it becomes clear that by the direction given at point no. 4(1) in respect of irregularities, there was a direction that a First Information Report had to be lodged and the petitioner's contract was to be terminated. This definitely did not mean that the petitioner's contract had to be outrightly terminated. A full fledged enquiry had to precede the order as it cast a stigma on the petitioner. In the absence of a complete full fledged enquiry, the order dated 24.1.2015 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgrah, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same is set aside.
However, the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Secretary, U.P., is not being adjudicated upon as it appears to be only a preliminary enquiry.
With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 PK (Siddhartha Varma,J.)