(Old No. 9635/1993) v. State of U.P. through Principal

Brief facts of the case, as per the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as General Manager of the Garhwal Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam ( hereinafter called as ‘Nigam’) by the Managing Director of the Nigam in consultation with the Committee of Management. The petitioner joined his duties as General Manager of the Nigam with effect from 25.2.1985. 3- The Nigam had a Show Room in New Delhi situated at Baba Kharag Singh Marg, Cannaught Place in the name and style of ‘Gaurav’, the Garhwal Emporium and an agreement was entered into between the Nigam and one Mr. Dharmendra Verma wherein the 2 Show Room was let out to Mr. Dharmendra Verma on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- . Mr. Dharmendra Verma was required to sell the products of the Nigam through this Show Room. However, Mr. Dharmendra Verma failed to fulfil his part of the contract on many points and also failed to deposit the security of Rs. 10,000/-, but any how he took over the possession of the Show Room and subsequently he also failed to remit the monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- to the Nigam. Various letters were sent to Mr. Dharmendra Verma directing him to comply with the terms of the agreement and ultimately vide letter dated 24-2-1988 Mr. Dharmendra Verma was directed to hand over and transfer the possession of the premises to the Nigam. 4- On 21-7-1988 the petitioner sought approval for tour of Delhi in order to get the Show Room vacated as well as for settlement of dues with Mr. Dharmendra Verma which was around Rs. 10,000/- and for filing application for licence to import rabbits. The approval was granted to the petitioner by the Managing Director and the petitioner reached Delhi on 22nd July, 1988. On 22-7-1988 the C.B.I. Officials raided the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from his possession. 5- The allegation against the petitioner was for acceptance of bribe amounting to Rs. 5,000/- from Mr. Dharmendra Verma. 6- The petitioner was thereafter put under suspension vide order dated 1st of August, 1988. The charge sheet was also issued against him, wherein the petitioner was charged for accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from Mr. Dharmendra Verma, as well as for suppressing information to the Nigam regarding his arrest by C.B.I. 7- The petitioner submitted his reply against the charges levelled against him. Sri S.M. Srivastava, Joint Managing Director of the Nigam was appointed Inquiry Officer and after having perused the entire evidence available on the record, he issued the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner produced the evidence in support of his defence. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report to the Managing Director of the Nigam. The Managing Director passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner on 8-7-1993 vide order No. 236/nks-39(88-91) – (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). 3 8- Certain other charges were also levelled against the petitioner with regard to the serious financial irregularities and in that departmental inquiry one Sunder Lal, General Manager of the Nigam was appointed Inquiry Officer, who issued the charge sheet against the petitioner and ultimately submitted his report to the Managing Director. The Managing Director again dismissed the services of the petitioner vide order No. 237/N% -205(2)/ 88-89, dated 8-7-1993 – (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). 9- Some other charges were also levelled against the petitioner for dereliction in the duties and in that inquiry one Sunder Lal, General Manager of the Nigam was appointed Inquiry Officer, who ultimately submitted his report to the Managing Director of the Nigam. The Managing Director again dismissed the services of the petitioner vide order No. 238/N% - 96 (89-90), dated 8-7-1993 – (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). 10- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 8-7-1993 contained in Annexure Nos. 4, 6 and 8 to the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Lucknow), which has been transferred to this Court after creation of the separate State. 11- The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has been proved as corrupt Officer and eventually was involved in a trap case and taken into custody by the team of C.B.I., Delhi while accepting the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. It has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never cared for his duty towards the Nigam and instead of to get the Delhi Show Room vacated, bargained for bribe with Mr. Dharmendra Verma. It has also been pleaded that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to inform the Managing Director regarding the trap by C.B.I. on

22.7.1988 in Delhi. The petitioner was arrested while accepting the bribe and was released on bail on 23.7.1988, but he did not inform the Managing Director about this incident. It has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit that all documents required by the petitioner for his defence were made available to him and he was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in his defence. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the withdrawal of the criminal case does 4 not effect the departmental proceedings, as the departmental action is independent of court proceeding. 12- The petitioner thereafter filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the facts narrated in the writ petition. 13- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14- Before we decide this writ petition on merit, it would be worthy to mention here that the Managing Director on the same day, i.e. 8-7- 1993 passed three dismissal orders against the petitioner. Once the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order No. 236/nks-39(88-91), dated 8-7-1993 then the subsequent dismissal orders passed by the Managing Director do not carry any sanctity, as a person once dismissed cannot be again dismissed from service. Therefore, we do not desire to consider the subsequent dismissal orders (Annexure Nos. 6 and 8), passed by the Managing Director against the petitioner on 8-7-1993. 15- It reveals from the record that the petitioner was trapped by the C.B.I. Officials while accepting bribe of Rs. 5000/- from Mr. Dharmendra Verma in order to save him from the eviction of the Show Room which was on his possession. The specific charge was levelled by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner and the petitioner was given full opportunity to adduce the evidence in his favour. The petitioner also submitted material in his defence, as he submitted his reply before the Inquiry Officer. It is to be made clear that the petitioner did not produce any witness in his defence. The order dated 8-7-1993 annexed as Annexure – 4 to this writ petition also indicates that the petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses pertaining to the charge of accepting the bribe by him. 16- As far as the another charge levelled against the petitioner is concerned, it is that he concealed the fact of his arrest by the C.B.I. Officials at New Delhi, taken into custody and thereafter released on bail. It was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the Managing Director of the Nigam with regard to this incident, but the petitioner for the reasons best known to him concealed this fact and did not inform the higher authorities of the Nigam. The record reveals that the petitioner informed the Managing Director with regard to the 5 aforesaid incident only on 1-8-1988. It also reveals from the record that the aforesaid incident of trap had come in the knowledge of the Managing Director on 26-7-1988 and the Managing Director asked for an explanation of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner in fact submitted his report to the Managing Director on 1-8-1988. The Inquiry Officer thoroughly examined all the material available on the record and thereafter came to the conclusion that charges levelled against the petitioner, i.e., accepting the bribe and arrested by the C.B.I. Officials on 22.7.1988, as well as concealing the fact of his arrest and then released on bail by not informing to his higher authorities, were established. 17- It is also pertinent to mention here that after the report by the Inquiry Officer was submitted to the Managing Director, the petitioner was again afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the final order of dismissal against him. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the Managing Director and submitted his representation. The petitioner was given the required documents and thereafter the date for personal hearing was fixed. The Managing Director heard the petitioner and perused the material available before him and it was only thereafter the Managing Director passed the dismissal order against the petitioner. 18- We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of dismissal passed against the petitioner vide Annexure- 4 to this writ petition. The impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. 19- The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20- The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)