Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25.09.2021 passed in Claim Petition No.442 of 2018, whereby claim petition preferred by the respondent before the State Public Service Tribunal has been allowed.
3. Learned A.C.S.C. appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in the Departmental enquiry, no date, time and place was fixed and no opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the enquiry officer to the delinquent employee, as such punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It has been submitted that the claim petition has been allowed on technical grounds, however, the matter has not been remanded back to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage the inquiry became defective. It is well settled that when court/tribunal finds inquiry defective, then the matter is remitted to the Department to proceed from the stage inquiry became defective in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Jai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the claim petition has been allowed on merit in addition to the defect in the departmental enquiry. Learned Tribunal has considered the merit of the case and only on technical ground, the claim petition has not been allowed. It is also submitted that even the alleged charges on which the censure entry was awarded, were with respect to shortage in lifting of minimum guarantee quota of liquor, no revenue loss has been caused to the State exchequer in the matter. The submission is that in view of the law laid down by this Court in judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.319(SB) of 2007 : Jamuna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue & Ors, non fulfillment of the target would not amount to any misconduct.
5. It is also submitted that in judgment and order dated 24.08.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.783(SB) of 2015: State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Department of Forest vs Raj Mani Singh & Anr, it has been held that mere carelessness or lack of seriousness of an employee or failure to show better efficiency up to desired level, ipso facto, does not amount to misconduct warranting punishment under Rules.
Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment for convenience is reproduced below:-
"15. The allegations at the best show that the petitioner is a non serious or less efficient employee. He was not very alert or careful. It shows that he is less capable official but in the absence of anything further, mere carelessness or lack of seriousness of an employee or failure to show better efficiency upto desired level, ipso facto, would not amount to 'misconduct' warranting punishment under Rules. In J. Ahmed (supra) Court held that Lack of efficiency or failure to attain highest standards in discharge of duties attached to public office 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, which is not the case in hand."
6. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal while considering the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has dealt with the merit of the charge on which the punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner and has allowed the claim petition on merit as well as on technical ground that in the departmental proceedings date, time place was not fixed and opportunity of personal hearing was not provided to the delinquent employee/respondent.
7. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Tribunal, as such writ petition lacks merit.It is accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2021 prateek