Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
(By Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.)
1. This special appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52832 of 2006 dismissing the writ petition in which the petitioner had challenged the order of his reversion to the basic salary and the adverse effect of reducing his salary.
2. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment mentioning therein that the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order since the Court has not found any error in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 4.7.2005 passed in the writ petition is as under:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It transpires that the Tehsildar submitted a report alleging that the petitioner while posted as a Collection Amin, had not recovered the dues as per the standards prescribed by the State Government and that he was not taking any interest in the recovery of the amount from the various persons. On the basis of this report, District Magistrate initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate was nominated as the Inquiry Officer. A charge sheet was issued and, based on the inquiry proceeding, a report was submitted, in which, it was found that out of a target of Rs. 2,17,016/-, a recovery of Rs. 1359/- and Rs. 747 only was made by the petitioner. On the basis of this report, negligence committed by the petitioner was proved. Further it is found that he did not visit the areas to make the recovery of the money. On this basis, the Inquiry Officer further found that the petitioner had committed negligence and was not performing his duty. The District Magistrate agreed with the report and issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why his services should not be dismissed. Pursuant to his reply, the District Magistrate passed an order reverted the petitioner to the basic salary and punishment of adverse entry. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the writ petition.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Admittedly, the recovery was not made by the petitioner as per the standards laid down by the State Government. Further, no proof was filed by the petitioner to show that he had visited the areas for the recovery of the amount. A bald allegation has been made to the effect that on account of drought, the recovery was not possible. This is a bald allegation which is not supported by any proof. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order since the Court has not found any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed"
3. The aforesaid order is challenged only on the ground that charge of less recovery and negligence in the present case do not fall within the meaning of "misconduct" hence reversion of the appellant to the basic salary and punishment of adverse entry by the impugned order are illegal, arbitrary and as such are liable to be set aside. In support of his case the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment referred by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Sri J. Ahmed Service Law Reporter 1979 (1) Page 840. The Court in that case considered Article 311 in reference to All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit), 1958 and All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1954 Rule 4. The Court in the said case has tried to ascertain what generally constituted misconduct specially in context of disciplinary proceedings and entailing penalty.
In para 11 and 12 relied upon by the appellant the Court held thus:
11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct [see Pierce v. Foster(1)]. A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle .(Indicator Newspapers) (2)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur(1), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza(2). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct".
In industrial jurisprudence amongst others, habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct but in Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik(5), in the absence of standing orders governing the employee's undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as misconduct in the context of discharge being assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Unio nof India(6), the manner in which a member of the service discharged his quasi judicial function disclosing abuse of power was treated as constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single act of omission or error of judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if such error or omission results in serious or strocious consequences the same may amount to misconduct as was held by this Court in P. H. Kalyani v. Air France, Calcutta(7), wherein it was found that the two mistakes committed by the employee while checking the load-sheets and balance charts would involve possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life and, therefore, the negligence in work in the context of serious consequences was treated as misconduct. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through, there are other more familiar instances of which a railway cabinman signals in a train on the same track where there is a stationary train causing headlong collision; a nurse giving intravenous injection which ought to be given intramuscular causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking an instrument showing snag in engine and the aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil [see Navinchandra Shakerchand shah v. Manager, Ahmedabad Co- op. Department Stores Ltd.(1)]. But in any case, failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty.
12. The High Court was of the opinion that misconduct in the context of disciplinary proceeding means misbehaviour involving some form of guilty mind or mens rea. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view because gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty may no involve mens rea but may still constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings."
4. Before dealing with the judgment we may say that for about more than a decade the Courts have been of the view that in case government sets standards for recovery, the same may not be strictly followed in case of drought and other natural calamities for the reason that the agriculturist from whom recovery is to be made is totally thrown out of normal life. Agriculture consumes a lot of time hence agriculturist requires time to resettle and cannot pay the recovery. It is for this reason the State Government which is a welfare state declares such affected areas as drought areas and flood affected areas imposing restriction for not collecting revenue from the affected agriculturist of that area. This has given a tool to number of people who had been working, as in the instant case, and drawing handsome salary from the state government. Some times they also resort corrupt means for not making recoveries by taking bribe from the persons upon whom revenue of state government is due. In such cases where a charge is levelled upon an employee or amin, as in the present case, of not making recovery upto the standard, at least the standard set up by the state government, he must either show to establish that the affected area was declared as a drought hit area or a flood affected area or any other reasonable explanation. He must also establish that other similarly situated Amins along with him also could not for these reasons make recovery because of the draught fixed by the state government.
5. However, in the instant case the petitioner has failed to establish any such thing.
6. The appellant was given a target for main recovery a sum of Rs. 2,17,016/- and misc. recovery of Rs. 1,33,014/- against which he recovered Rs. 1,359/- and Rs. 7000/- respectively. It is after holding an inquiry to the charge levelled against him, that he was found guilty of it and his appeal thereafter being considered by the appellate authority was rejected. In this regard order dated 3.12.2004 may be referred which reads as under:
izLrqr izdj.k Jh f'kopUnz fuxe] laxzg vehu rglhy ccs: ds fo:} izp+fyr foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr gSA Jh f'kopUnz fuxe ds fo:} olwyh djus] olwyh es :fp u ysus ekud iwjk u djus ds vkjksiks ij rglhynkj ccs: dh vk[;k fnuakd 02&01&2004 ds dze es foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh x;h rFkk mi ftykf/kdkjh ccs: dks takp vf/kdkjh ukfer fd;k x;kA deZZpkjh ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiks ds lEcU/k esa vkjksi i= fnuakd 01&04&2004 dks fuxZr fd;k x;k tks lEcfU/kr ij O;fDrxr :i ls fnuakd 15&04&2004 dks rkehy fd;k x;kA vkjksih deZpkjh }kjk vkjksi i= dk dksbZ mRrj tWkp vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr ugh fd;k x;kA takp vf/kdkjh }kjk viuh takp vk[;k fnuakd 31&5&04 izLrqr dh x;hA tWkp vk[;k ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih deZpkjh ds ikl eq[; ns;ks dh :i;k [email protected]:i;k rFkk fofo/k ns;ks dh :i;k [email protected] ds lkis{k mlds }kjk eq[; ns;ks dh lIrkg Hkj es ek= 1359-00 :i;s dh olwyh dh x;h gSA bl izdkj olwyh dk;Z es :fp u ysus rFkk ljdkjh dk;Z dh mis{kk djus laca/kh ml ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZr% fl} gksrk gSA nwljs vkjksi ds lEcU/k es takp vf/kdkjh }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ;g vkjksi olwyh esa ?kksj ykijokgh cjrus o mis{kk Hkko j[kus rFkk drZO;ksa ds izfr mnklhu jgus ls lEcfU/kr gSA fnuakd 30&12&2003 ds nkf[kys esa laxzg vehu }kjk ek= 747-38 :i;k dh olwyh dh x;h Fkh ftlls Li"V gS fd laxzg vehu olwyh ds izfr ?kksj ykijokg gSA bl izdkj vopkjh deZpkjh ij ;g vkjksi Hkh iw.kZ :is.k fl} gksrk gSA rhljk o vafre vkjksi 'kkldh; ns;ks dh olwyh ds fy;s fu;fer :i ls {ks= es u tkus] olwyh gsrq Hkze.k dk;Zdze izLrqr u djus ls lEcfU/kr gSA blds ckj es takp vk[;k es Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k olwyh fooj.k ls irk pyrk gS fd deZpkjh olwyh gsrq {ks= es tkrs rks dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk fd olwyh u gksrh laxzg vehu }kjk laxzg eSuqvyh ds izLrj 60 es nh x;h O;oLFkk dk vuqikyu u djrs gq;s LosPNkpkfjdk iw.kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kks rFkk lk{;ks ds ijh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij takp vf/kdkjh ls lger gksrs gq;s esjs }kjk vkjksih deZpkjh ds takp vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr takp vk[;k dh izfr miyC/k djkrs gq;s dkj.k crkvks uksfVl fnuakd 16&9&2014 bl vk'k; ls fuxZr fd;k x; fd vkjksiks dks vki ij iw.kZr% fl} ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr es D;ksa u vkidks fMlfel ¼lsok eqDr½ dj fn;k tk;sA vkjksih deZpkjh }kjk dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ds vius izLrqr mRrj es dgk gS fd mlds ikl ukSdjh ds vykok Hkj.k iks"k.k dk dksbZ tfj;k ugha gS NksVs NksVs cPps gSaA ftudh f'k{kk nh{kk py jgh gSA izLrkfor naM ls cPpks dk Hkfo"; va/kdkj e; gks tk;sxkA izkFkhZ Hkfo"; es iwjs eu ls olwyh dk;Z djsxkA esjs }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k lHkh lk{;ksa dk Hkyh izdkj ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA deZpkjh ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiks ds lEcU/k esa takp vf/kdkjh dh vk[;k ls lger gksrs gq;s ml ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiks dks fl} ikrk gWwA vipkjh deZpkjh }kjk izLrqr dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ds mRrj ij lE;d fooksjksijkUr naM ,oa izdj.k ij lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd fopkj djrs gq;s fuEuor naM ikfjr djrk gWwA 1&Jh f'kopUnz laxzg vehu rglhy ccs: dks rRdky izHkko ls laxzg vehu ds ewy csru :i;k [email protected] es izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA 2&Jh f'kopUnz fuxe laxzg vehu rglhy ccs: }kjk olwyh dk;Z es :fp u ysus rFk laxzg eSuqvy es nh x;h O;oLFkk rFkk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dk ikyu u dj LosPNkpkfjrk iw.kZ ¼/khjt lkgw ½ ftykf/kdkjh cWknk i= la[;k o fnuakd mijksDrkuqlkj izfrfyfi %& mi ftykf/kdkjh ccs: dks mijksDrkuqlkj vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djkus gsrqA 2& rglhynkj ccs: dks nks izfr;ka es bl vk'k; ls fd ,d izfr lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ij rkehy djkdj nwljh ij muds lfefZFk gLrk{kj izkIr dj bl dk;kZy; dks okil djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA [email protected] ¼/khjt lkgw½ ftykf/kdkjh] cWaknkA^^
7. From record it appears that the petitioner has been found guilty of all the three charges proved against him.
8. As regards whether the petitioner has committed misconduct or not, we are of the opinion that to be deliberately negligent in the work and deliberately not making recovery of amount fixed under target for him thus amount to misconduct. The State has to pay his salary as well as make the expenses of recovery from the work for which he was engaged but sadly enough he was being paid more salary and making less recovery. There is nothing on record to show that the Amins working with him in his area had also made less recovery due to any drought or other natural calamity, as claimed. Consequence of misconduct of the petitioner of not performing his duties honestly and sincerely, in a negligent manner may ostensibly seem small but it has great deleterious cumulative effect on the economy of the state, therefore, such matter may not be considered leniently.
For all reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.9.2014 MT**