Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18101 of 2003 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Gupta Respondent :- Assistant General Manager, Uco Bank And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ms. Suman Sirohi,Aroop Banerjee,Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Manoj Mishra
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Shanker, learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to bring up the records of the case and get the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 23.4.2002 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 quashed.
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any deduction from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 23.4.2002 passed by respondent no.1 and 2 during the pendency of the writ petition.
The impugned order dated 25.2.2002 is an administrative order which has been passed in consequence to the order of punishment dated 25.2.2002. The petitioner had not challenged the order of punishment dated 25.2.2002 but merely challenged the impugned consequential order of recovery dated 23.4.2002 before the appellate authority and his appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24.2.2003. The main order of punishment is also not under challenge in this writ petition.
The order dated 25.2.2002 was passed after conducting an inquiry in accordance with law which does not suffer from any error of law. The allegation of the petitioner in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the writ petition that despite demand copies of certain documents were not provided to him, has been completely denied with reference to documentary evidences on record in paragraphs 7, 9, and 13 of the counter affidavit which goes to show that whatever documents were demanded by the petitioner, he was allowed to inspect them. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that the documents demanded were not provided to him, is incorrect. The entire inquiry proceedings has been conducted in accordance with law which does not suffer from any infirmity. The main order of punishment has not been challenged by the petitioner which has attained finality. Therefore, the challenge to the consequential order of recovery, is wholly misconceived.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018/vkg