JUDGMENT
1. These writ petitions have been filed by Shri Y.K. Jain, who is employed as Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam.
The first writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2004 passed by the Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam whereby the grant of promotional pay scale to the petitioner has been stayed until further orders with a further prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner against the said order in a time bound manner and to provide all consequential benefits thereafter along with the interest at the rate of 18 percent.
2. The second writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20th October, 2004 where under the Chief Engineer, Jal Nigam has imposed the penalty of censure and has further directed for recovery of the loss caused by the acts/omissions of the petitioner after they were found proved in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam on his appeal/representation. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed for being promoted on the post of Executive Engineer with a further request to open the envelope as sealed cover procedure had been adopted in his case.
3. So far as the first writ petition is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chief Engineer has no authority under the law to withhold the payment of salary in the promotional pay scale and that too for unlimited period. With reference to the aforesaid, counsel for the Jal Nigam pointed out that the payment of promotional pay scale to the petitioner was withheld in view of the fact that he was already facing departmental proceedings and that without awaiting the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, he was granted the promotional pay scale. The Chief Engineer, therefore, suspended the order of payment of promotional pay scale to the petitioner till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
4. With regard to the second writ petition filed before this Court, counsel for the petitioner initially contended that no enquiry was ever conducted in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge sheet and that he has been punished without following the procedure known to law.
5. This Court insisted upon the counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate from the pleadings of the present writ petitions as well as from the memo of appeal/representation filed before the Managing Director for substantiating the allegations so made. We may record that the counsel for the petitioner hopelessly failed to refer to any paragraph of the writ petitions or his memo of appeal/representation wherein such a plea has been raised. We may further record that in the impugned order, it has specifically been recorded that the petitioner was served the charge sheet to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter, an enquiry report was submitted and after considering all the materials which was on record, it was decided to inflict the penalty of censure with a further direction to recover the loss caused to the State Government because of the acts/omissions by the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to enter into the issue as to whether the proceedings resulting in passing of the impugned orders are vitiated for violation of any principle of natural justice inasmuch no such case has been pleaded by the petitioner either before this Court or before the appellate/higher authority. It is neither permissible nor desirable for the Court to travel beyond pleadings.
7. Counsel for the petitioner then made an attempt to take the Court through the findings recorded in the impugned orders inflicting the punishment and tried to question the same of his own. We are conscious of the fact that writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer which finds favour of the Disciplinary Authority for arriving at a conclusion different than that of the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority qua the guilt of the petitioner which has been found proved in respect of the charges levelled against him.
8. We may record that this is not the case of the petitioner that any statutory rule regulating the procedure of the departmental enquiry has been violated or the principles of natural justice have not been followed while passing the order of punishment.
9. In view of the aforesaid punishment inflicted upon the petitioner in the departmental proceedings, his claim for grant of promotional pay scale has been negatived by the respondent department on the ground that the petitioner has not been found suitable for grant of such promotion.
10. In the totality of the circumstances noticed hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed by the Competent Authority while deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the order of the said punishment.
11. Since we have already affirmed the orders whereby the punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner as well as the order rejecting his appeal/representation against the same, we are satisfied that the respondents are justified in withholding the promotional pay scale which was earlier sanctioned in favour of the petitioner ignoring the pendency of the departmental proceedings.
12. In view of the aforesaid, both the petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.