JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Moharrir, Town Area, Naraini on 28.12.1964. He was confirmed on the post on 10.9.1970. He was suspended on 22.3.1976 and was served with the charge-sheet on the same day for committing certain misconduct of not depositing a sum of Rs. 819.10 for four days in the Treasury. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.3.1976. However, the Town Area Committee vide resolution No. 1.76-77, dated 23.4.1976 decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and the papers were forwarded for approval to prescribed authority under Section 10 (2) of Town Area Act, 1914. The prescribed authority vide order dated 18.6.1976 held that before dismissing the petitioner from service, opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. The petitioner was not reinstated on the post nor he was paid any subsistence allowance.
3. Aggrieved the petitioner moved a representation to respondent No. 1 for being reinstated but he was not reinstated. He again submitted his affidavits in support of his reply vide letter dated 31.12.1983. The petitioner submitted an affidavit of S/Sri Shital Prasad Awasthi and Ramzan Bux who were the members of the then Town Area Committee and also reputed persons of the town respectively. The then prescribed authority/S.D.O. Town Area, Naraini vide order dated 22.11.1982 recommended to respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner as the charges against him were not made out and the suspension was illegal. Petitioner was thereafter again served with a notice on 27.9.1983 as to why the petitioner may not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 3.10.1983. The prescribed authority vide order dated 28.12.1983 found that the charges against the petitioner was not proved and directed the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by the counsel that respondent No. 1 thereafter issued an impugned order dated 28.12.1983 reinstating the petitioner but without any pay. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 1 petitioner filed appeal/ representation before respondent No. 2. A report was called from the officer in-charge Local Bodies, Banda to submit his report which was submitted on 21.8.1985. By order dated 4.9.1985 respondent No. 2 rejected the representation against withholding of salary of the petitioner for a period of 22.3.1976 to 28.12.1983 that is for more than seven years.
5. It is urged by counsel for the petitioner that once the authorities reached the findings that the petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct, withholding of his salary for the said period is wholly illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the order is illegal and arbitrary. I have perused the record. From the impugned order Annexure-7 passed by respondent No. 1, it is evident that the charges against the petitioner are baseless and were not proved and the petitioner had not embezzled any amount. The relevant findings of Annexure-7 is as under :
^^i=koyh esa layXu Jh lS;~;n egQwt vyh rRdkyhu izHkkjh vf/kdkjh Vk-,- ujSuh ,oa ijxukeftLVsV] ujSuh us viuh vk[;k fn- 22-11-82 ftldh izekf.kr izfrfyfi layXu gS A tks ftyk eftLVsV] cknk dks lEcksf/kr gS esa ;g er Li"V :i ls O;Dr fd;k gS fd Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy dSf'k;j Vk-,- ujSuh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi fujk/kkj gSaa A mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gw fd Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy us :- [email protected]&iSlk xou ugha fd;k tks dsoy pkj fnu foyEc ls tek [ktkuk gqvk A dsoy bl vfu;ferrk ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vkjksi Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy dSf'k;j ij fl) ugha gksrs gSaa A vr,o Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy fuyfEcr dSf'k;j uxj {ks= lfefr ujSuh] ckWnk dks rRdkyhu izHkko ls fcuk osru cgky fd;k tkrk gS A fnukad 28-12-83 g- viBuh;
ds- ds- cktisbZ izHkkjh vf/kdkjh Vk-,- [email protected] ijxuk eftLVsV] ujSuh A**
6. From Annexure-9 which is recommendation of an officer in-charge Local Bodies, Banda dated 21.8.1985 on which the District Magistrate has passed an order dated 4.7.1985, it is apparent that the charges against the petitioner are not proved and there is a positive finding that he has embezzled any amount. From the report it is clear that one V.K. Mishra, Pond Keeper who has also been suspended along with the petitioner for the same charge had been reinstated with full back wages in service vide order dated 3.3.1979. It appears that the Samiti had no money to pay the wages of the petitioner for more than 7 years hence for this reason the District Magistrate passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner was guilty of depositing the money late 6 to 4 days. The recommendation dated 21.8.1985 and order passed by the District Magistrate is as under :
^^laLrqfr vks- lh- yksdy ckMh] cknk fnukad 21-8-1985 Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy dSf'k;j Vk- ,-
ujSuh us vk- lh- Vk- ,- ujSuh ds fo:) ,d izkFkZuk i= fnukad 11-1-84 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk Jh 'kqDy dks Vk- ,- ujSuh ds lnL; }kjk 22-3-76 dks fuyfEcr dj fn;k x;k Fkk ,oa mlh fnu vkjksi i= Hkh ns fn;k x;k Fkk A Jh 'kqDy ij :- 819&10 dk xcu dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k Fkk vks- lh- Vk- ,- ujSuh us vius vkns'k fn- 28-12-1983 esa mDr /kujkf'k esa xcu ugha dgk gS dsoy 4 fnu foyEc ls ml /kukjkf'k dks Jh 'kqDy }kjk tke [ktkuk fd;k x;k gS A blds vfrfjDr dksbZ vkjksi Jh 'kqDy ij fl) ughaa gSa buds lkFk Jh fot; dqekj feJ Vk-,- Hkh fuyfEcr fd;s x;s Fksa tks 3-3-1979 dks losru cgky gks pqds gSa A esjs fopkj ls Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy dks Hkh losru cgky gks tkuk pkfg, Fkk A lfefr ds ikl vxj Jh 'kqDy ds osru dk iSlk ugha gS rks 'kklu }kjk iSlk Jh 'kqDy ds osru ds Hkqxrku djus ds fy, iSlk eaxk fy;k tk;sxk A vr% Jh 'kqDy dh losru cgky djus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gS A vkns'k ds Jheku~ th dh lsok esa iszf"kr A nLr[kr vk-lh-
LFkkuh; fudk;] ckank m-iz-
vr% Jh mek'kadj 'kqDy foyEc ls /kujkf'k tek djus ds fy, nks"kh gSaa tks Lohr rF; gS vr% izR;kosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A g- lkSjHk pUn 4-7-1985 ftyk eftLVsV] cknk A**
7. It is apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid order that the petitioner was not guilty of any embezzlement and Sri V.K. Mishra, who was charged along with him has been reinstated in service. No reason has been given by the District Magistrate, as to why the petitioner was discriminated. The punishment of stoppage of seven years salary is highly arbitrary and disproportionate which is not even proved. The punishment is too harsh and cannot be sustained.
8. For the reasons stated above this petition is allowed with direction that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will pay the salary of the petitioner, which has been withheld for the period of 22.3.1976 to 28.12.1983 along with interest @ 10% per annum within a period of two months from the date of production in accordance with law. Impugned order dated 27.9.1985 is quashed. No costs.