JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Ms. Anu Jaiswal for petitioner and Sri M.P.S. Niranjan for respondent-Corporation.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in Central Workshop of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Kanpur, and was posted at the sub-section Training Centre, Kanpur. By an order dated 25.10.1980 passed by Deputy Technical Engineer on 27.10.1980, he was placed under suspension. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other officers reporting that Sri K.G.N. Khare, Junior Foreman, and the petitioner working as Junior Clerk in the Training Center prepared false payment sheets and forwarded it to the Account Department after its verification from time office; for payment of wages to the apprentices. Sri Phool Mohd. Qadari, Clerk in the Accounts Section was also found to be involved in conspiracy as he did not take any notice of the over writings, and cuttings in the payment sheets prepared by the petitioner. It was reported that a sum of Rs. 29,835.30 was embezzled by preparing false payment sheets and making payments to the apprentices who were not present on the working days. A charge sheet was submitted and the Criminal Case No. 1252 of 1983 under Sections 465, 471, 409 IPC is said to be still pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur,
3. The petitioner was given a departmental charge sheet on 5.5.1981. Initially Sri S.P. Gupta, Accounts Officer was appointed on 13.10.1981. On 7.12.1981 Sri Hukum Singh was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Subsequently Inquiry Officer was changed twice, Sri Sobha Ram was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 10.5.1983 and Ms. Zaidi who completed the enquiry, was appointed on 9.10.1983. The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.6.1981 denying his involvement and the liability. He pleaded that the departmental proceedings may be stayed until the criminal case is decided. In Para 10 of his reply, he submitted that he was not assigned duties for payment. The payment bills were prepared by other officers and that the training officer, after his satisfaction, used to issue the payment order on his own, after which the payment was made by other officers. The petitioner pleaded that he was not responsible for making payments.
4. The Inquiry Officer gave notice dated 21.2.1986 to the petitioner to appear in the enquiry proceedings on 5.3.1986. The petitioner did not appear, on which an information was given by the administration of the Corporation, and was published in daily news paper 'Dainik Jagran' on 5.4.1986 to appear in the proceedings on 16.4.1986. The petitioner, however, chose to remain absent from the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer examined Sri Ram Babu, Assistant Accounts Officer; Sri Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Accounts Officer, Sri C.P. Pandey, the then Junior Clerk and found that the petitioner and Sri K.G.N. Khare were responsible for preparing the payment sheets and for making payments, and that both these officers are responsible for embezzlement. The petitioner was given a notice dated 27.3.1987 to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with Registered DGM No. 7923 M/DIS dated 23.8.1988. The petitioner did not give any reply to the second show cause notice and that by an order dated 25.11.1988, the Deputy General Manager of the Central Workshop of the Corporation dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The notices were issued in this writ petition on 4.6.1990.
5. A counter affidavit of H.K. Singh, Deputy General Manager, Central Workshop, Rawatpur, Kanpur is on record. The matter was heard on 3.11.2003 and on that day the Court found that the enquiry report has not been filed. The Counsel for the respondents was given time to produce the record of the proceedings including enquiry report. The respondents produced the record on 11.12.2003 and has filed a supplementary affidavit of Sri L.N. Thakur OAG-III in the officer of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Central Workshop, Rawatpur, Kanpur Nagar. The respondents have also produced the original record.
6. Ms. Anu Jaiswal submits that the petitioner was working as Junior Clerk in the Training Centre. He was not assigned the duties of preparing and maintaining the attendance register of the apprentices. It was the duty of the dealing clerk in the time office and the Head Time Keeper to verify the attendance and to maintain the register of apprentices. The pay bills were prepared by the Accounts Section. The cheques were prepared by the Senior Accountant, ant it was the duty of the Junior Cashier and Head Cashier of the accounts section to distribute the payment. The petitioner was never assigned these jobs. She submits that the petitioner was not given the documents in support of the charges to defend himself and that no information was sent to him regarding dates fixed in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was held ex parte that no evidence was led nor any adverse material produced or assessed by the Inquiry Officer. She submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the actual responsibility lay upon Sri G.P. Sharma, Assistant Accountant, Sri K.D. Nigam, Junior Accountant, Sri M.M. Lal, Accountant and Phool Mohd. Clerk in the Account Section as well as Suresh Chandra Yadav, Training Officer. She submits that Sri Ram Babu Sharma, Junior Cashier and M.M. Lal, Deputy Senior Cashier were not given charge sheet.
7. I have gone through the record of the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report. The petitioner in his reply dated 3.6.1981 did not ask for any document, supporting the charges. From Paras 1 to 8 he referred to the criminal case in which he was granted bail on 6.12.1980 and the satisfaction recorded by the Sessions Judge, recording the petitioners innocence, after perusing the documents produced by the Officers of the Workshop. He pleaded that during the pendency of the criminal case he could not be required to submit any reply and that both the cases cannot proceed simultaneously. In Paras 9 and 10, he stated that he was not assigned the duties of preparing the pay bills and making payments and these pay bills were prepared and payments were made by other officers and payments were made after the training officer was satisfied. The petitioner thereafter neither submitted any application to stay the departmental proceedings or requested to give documents. He absented from the proceedings. He did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the dates fixed on 5.3.1986 and 16.4.1986. In Para 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that petitioner was sent a letter dated 21.2.1986 to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 5.3.1986 and thereafter a notice dated 3.4.1986 was sent to the office of daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' which was published on 5.4.1986 intimating the petitioner to appear in the inquiry on 16.4.1986 but the petitioner did not appear. The record does not show that any request was made to supply any documents.
8. The report of Inquiry Officer dated 13.10.1986 enclosed with supplementary affidavit of Sri L.N. Thakur demonstrate that Sri Ram Babu Sharma, Assistant Accountant, and Sri P.C. Paliwal were examined on 11.4.1986, and Sri M.M. Dubey the then Cashier appeared on 17.4.1986. From the statement given by these officers, and from the perusal of the payment sheet and going through the procedure of making the payment, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner and Sri K.G.N. Khare used to prepare the payment sheets and received money for making payments. He found that Phool Mohd. Quadri was also negligent and did not take care to notice the over writing and cuttings on the payment sheets. The strength of apprentices varied from time to time and that after January, 1979 only Sri K.G.N. Khare and the petitioner were responsible for making payments. Sri M.M. Lal, the Accounts Officer, stated that he used to check the contingent receipts and expenditure and also inspected the cash accounts. Apart from the cash accounts the payments were also made through specified persons. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner was responsible along with Sri Khare for preparing false payment sheets, in getting them verified, withdrawing the wages and for making the payments made on the basis of manipulated payment sheets.
9. The petitioner did not ask for any documents during the enquiry, and inspite of knowledge of the date fixed, did not appear in the enquiry proceedings. He took a plea that the departmental proceedings should not have proceeded simultaneously with criminal case but did not either apply for stay of the proceedings or approached the Court for staying departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer examined all relevant documents and recorded statements of those employees who were working in the workshop at the relevant time and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner along with Sri Khare was responsible for the embezzlement.
10. The Court finds that a very casual process was adopted for making payment to the apprentices. The pay sheets prepared by the petitioner were not verified from the time office and that the payments were sanctioned and made without obtaining receipts. The wages were not paid from the cash account and that no one in the account section took care to verify the payment. The procedure for making payments was too casual and had sufficient loopholes for manipulation. No one took care to tally the payment sheets and wage bill register with attendance register and that the Supervising Officer were also guilty for failing to detect the preparation of falls documents and embezzlement. The department must device method to check such misuse of the funds of the corporation in future.
11. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any substance in the grounds taken to challenge the order. The punishment is not disproportionate to the charges. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.