Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has come up against the order of suspension as well as the order passed by the Authority to recover certain amount from the petitioner which is alleged to have not been deposited by him.
The matter relates to non-deposit of power dues that were collected and deposited with the then Cashier, Mritunjay Shukla. It was found that Mritunjay Shukla has embezzled a huge amount, therefore, an FIR was lodged. He is still reported to be behind bars and facing criminal charges.
Later on since the said amount also included the amount stated to have been tendered by the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry has been set up and the petitioner has been suspended. Simultaneously an order has been issued for realization of the amount indicated against the name of the petitioner in the order dated 30.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of suspension is unsubstantiated in law and the recovery has been made from the petitioner without fixing the liability in violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, Sri S.K. Srivastava, contends that the money was embezzled and has not been deposited till date, therefore, the recovery has rightly been made from the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings have, therefore, been instituted in order to enquire into the same and fix the liability accordingly.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the matter relates to financial embezzlement in respect of the deposit of Government funds which have been realized as power dues during the working of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has receipts duly issued by Sri Mritunjay Shukla, which demonstrate that the money had been handed over to him and as such the liability cannot be fixed on the petitioner to recover the said amount. This aspect of the matter, as to whether the receipts were genuinely issued and the money had been handed over to the petitioner, or not, is a subject matter of enquiry. The gravity of the charge and the sufficiency of evidence, therefore, cannot be gone into by this court so as to assess the validity of the suspension order at this stage. However, so far as the fixation of liability on the petitioner is concerned, the same is subject matter of enquiry itself and in the absence of any final liability being fixed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, it will not be appropriate to recover the amount during enquiry.
Accordingly, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of suspension but the order of recovery in so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall remain stayed till the conclusion of the enquiry and passing of final orders. It is, therefore, directed that the Executive Engineer shall proceed to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the directions contained hereinabove.
Order Date :- 29.1.2010 Shiraz