Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64517 of 2006 Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,N. Misra,Satya Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Ref:- Delay Condonation Application No. 8 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Delay in filing the substitution application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Ref:- Substitution Application No.9 of 2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Let heir of deceased petitioner as per description given in prayer clause of the application be substituted as petitioner no.1/1 in the writ petition and a note be made that petitioner died on 30.1.2018.
Application stands allowed. Ref:- Writ Petition Heard Ms. Vishakha Pandey, holding brief of Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities.
This petition is directed against orders dated 24.7.2006 and 15.11.2006, whereby a sum of Rs.1,03,909/- has been directed to be deducted from the petitioner.
At the relevant point of time the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager, Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited, Ghazipur. Certain Seasonal Amins apparently were engaged in connection with the work of Corporation. It appears that engagement of Amins were made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. These Amins were paid certain amount after they had approached this Court and orders were passed in their favour. Ultimately, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.6.2004 and disciplinary enquiry was initiated against her in the matter on the ground that various amounts were not due to be paid to the Amins. A charge sheet dated 1.6.2004 was served upon the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply to this charge sheet denying the allegations made against her, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Submission of reply by the petitioner in the matter is not in dispute. It appears that thereafter the Managing Director of the Corporation proceeded to pass an order awarding adverse entry to the petitioner on 26.7.2004. Another order has been passed by the Managing Director for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,03,909/- in 35 installments at the rate of 2,886/- per month. This order of the Managing Director refers to relevant facts and also the fact that payment was made to Amins under orders of this Court. In this order, however, neither there is any consideration of petitioner's reply nor any specific fault is attributed to the petitioner. It is, however, admitted on record that after submission of reply neither any date, time and place was fixed for holding of inquiry nor any statements etc. were recorded and behind the back of the petitioner the Managing Director proceeded to pass order impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's reply has not been taken note of and the order impugned is otherwise arbitrary and unsustainable inasmuch as a fair opportunity has been denied to the petitioner to defend herself.
Sri S. P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit submits that the order has rightly been passed against the petitioner.
So far as engagement of Amins by the Corporation is concerned, it is not in issue that such engagement was made on the basis of orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is also apparent that orders in favour of such Amins were passed by this Court. The petitioner in her reply has clearly stated such facts. However, the District Magistrate while passing order impugned has not adverted to the reply submitted by the petitioner. No specific reason is disclosed to hold the petitioner guilty of causing financial loss to the Corporation. The manner in which authority concerned has proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty cannot be approved. A fair opportunity of defence has otherwise been denied to the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 24.7.2006 and 15.11.2006 are quashed.
Ordinarily, this Court would have referred the matter back to the authorities for passing a fresh order after conducting an inquiry in the matter, but as the petitioner has already died, no useful purpose would be served in directing such a course to be followed. Petitioner, therefore, would be entitled to all benefits and the amount already realized from the petitioner shall be returned to her legal heirs, in terms of their entitlement, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, failing which the legal heirs would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Ashok Kr.