State of U.P. and Others v. Counsel for

Heard Ms. Seetu, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.C. Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner was a Secretary in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society is before this Court against an order of termination dated 22.09.2005 and order of rejection of departmental appeal dated 08.04.2006.

3. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated

29.03.2004 and a charge-sheet dated 28.04.2004/11.09.2004 was served upon him on 11 charges that without any permission of competent officer, he handed over the charge to one Sri Arun Kumar on 30/31.12.2003. In the garb of a fire accident, he removed relevant documents from the office of the Society and with aid of Arun Kumar has committed embezzlement and thereby caused loss to the society in different accounts being due adjustment were not carried out. On inspection, an inventory was prepared and on calculation it was found that less amount was deposited in comparison to sell to the tune of Rs. 14 lac.

4. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, however, nothing substantive explanation was mentioned thereafter the inquiry was conducted in due procedure and evidence on each charge was considered. The inspection report and Inventory prepared were also taken note of and the petitioner along with Arun Kumar were found guilty of misconduct and for recovery also.

5. Thereafter on basis of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply on 11.06.2006, denying the charges and that inquiry was conducted without providing relevant documents and that charge was handed over under the order of competent authority. The entire responsibility was of other person and petitioner was wrongly and illegally found responsible for referred act of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 22.09.2005 after considering the reply and the Inquiry Report found the charges to be proved and passed maximum punishment of ‘Dismissal From Service’ along with order of recovery.

6. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.78320 of 2005, challenging the 2 of 6 impugned punishment order, however, it was dismissed on a ground of alternative remedy i.e. an appeal.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal before concerned respondent, however, it was also dismissed by a reasoned order dated 08.04.2006. The aforesaid orders are impugned in present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued vehemently at length and submitted that inquiry was conducted without following procedure of law, since no date or time was fixed for holding inquiry as well as no oral evidence was adduced as such inquiry report was prepared contrary to prescribed procedure.

9. The petitioner has made allegation against the Inquiry Officer but the same was neither considered nor Inquiry Officer was changed. No opportunity of cross-examination was also provided. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred judgments passed in State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha: (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank: (2009) 2 SCC 570, Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and another : 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and others : 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475.

10. Learned counsel also referred that entire responsibility was of Arun Kumar Yadav. In the inquiry report both were held responsible, however, at the stage of Disciplinary Authority, entire responsibility was imposed on the petitioner. She also submitted that Arun Kumar has made forged signature of the petitioner, however, said averments were also not taken 3 of 6 note of during disciplinary proceedings. After the fire incident, Inventory was wrongly prepared.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order that entire procedure as prescribed in relevant Rules was followed, the petitioner was granted opportunity of appearance, however, he failed to appear as well as no explanation was mentioned in reply, therefore, the Inquiry Officer on basis of material and on basis of statements of witnesses recorded during the proceedings found all charges to be proved.

12. The inventory prepared after occurrence of fire accident was not much disputed and on basis of details of sale, it was found that less money was deposited as such quantum of amount determined for recovery was also correct.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The petitioner could not deny that a charge-sheet was served upon him and he has submitted his reply, however, no explanation was mentioned except that he wants to change the Inquiry Officer without any substance.

15. During inquiry, it was noted that the petitioner was informed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, however, he opted not to appear. It could not be denied that a sealed lock of the Warehouse was opened in presence of petitioner and others and an inventory was prepared.

16. Petitioner has not raised any dispute to inventory and has put his signatures on it also. He has not disputed the 4 of 6 endorsement, therefore, the inventory prepared on 25.02.2004 could not be challenged at belated stage and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer has rightly considered the same as genuine. In the Inventory, details of stock register and details of food grains found were also specifically mentioned. It was a part of the inquiry as well as a detail chart was also mentioned that material of amount of about Rs.24 lac was sold and the unadjusted amount was about Rs.14 lac. The quantum of stock and corresponding value is also not much disputed by petitioner. The petitioner’s appeal was also decided by a reasoned order after taking note of explanation given by petitioner.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, taking note of The State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner was failed to show any legal error in entire process of disciplinary proceedings and during inquiry, principles of natural justice were substantially complied with. The petitioner despite knowledge of inquiry has opted not to appear as well as that Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry on basis of material, and after taking note of evidence, inspection report and inventory, all charges found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority also applied mind and held that petitioner was entirely responsible and has illegally without any order from Competent Authority handed over the charge to Arun Kumar as well as money was embezzled also, therefore, on basis of nature of proved charges, the punishment and amount determined for recovery was awarded also not shockingly disproportionate. 5 of 6

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. September 09, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6

Heard Ms. Seetu, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.C. Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner was a Secretary in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society is before this Court against an order of termination dated 22.09.2005 and order of rejection of departmental appeal dated 08.04.2006.

3. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated

29.03.2004 and a charge-sheet dated 28.04.2004/11.09.2004 was served upon him on 11 charges that without any permission of competent officer, he handed over the charge to one Sri Arun Kumar on 30/31.12.2003. In the garb of a fire accident, he removed relevant documents from the office of the Society and with aid of Arun Kumar has committed embezzlement and thereby caused loss to the society in different accounts being due adjustment were not carried out. On inspection, an inventory was prepared and on calculation it was found that less amount was deposited in comparison to sell to the tune of Rs. 14 lac.

4. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, however, nothing substantive explanation was mentioned thereafter the inquiry was conducted in due procedure and evidence on each charge was considered. The inspection report and Inventory prepared were also taken note of and the petitioner along with Arun Kumar were found guilty of misconduct and for recovery also.

5. Thereafter on basis of the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice to petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply on 11.06.2006, denying the charges and that inquiry was conducted without providing relevant documents and that charge was handed over under the order of competent authority. The entire responsibility was of other person and petitioner was wrongly and illegally found responsible for referred act of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 22.09.2005 after considering the reply and the Inquiry Report found the charges to be proved and passed maximum punishment of ‘Dismissal From Service’ along with order of recovery.

6. At this stage, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.78320 of 2005, challenging the 2 of 6 impugned punishment order, however, it was dismissed on a ground of alternative remedy i.e. an appeal.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal before concerned respondent, however, it was also dismissed by a reasoned order dated 08.04.2006. The aforesaid orders are impugned in present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued vehemently at length and submitted that inquiry was conducted without following procedure of law, since no date or time was fixed for holding inquiry as well as no oral evidence was adduced as such inquiry report was prepared contrary to prescribed procedure.

9. The petitioner has made allegation against the Inquiry Officer but the same was neither considered nor Inquiry Officer was changed. No opportunity of cross-examination was also provided. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred judgments passed in State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha: (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank: (2009) 2 SCC 570, Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and another : 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, Subhas Chandra Sharma Vs. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills and others : 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475.

10. Learned counsel also referred that entire responsibility was of Arun Kumar Yadav. In the inquiry report both were held responsible, however, at the stage of Disciplinary Authority, entire responsibility was imposed on the petitioner. She also submitted that Arun Kumar has made forged signature of the petitioner, however, said averments were also not taken 3 of 6 note of during disciplinary proceedings. After the fire incident, Inventory was wrongly prepared.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order that entire procedure as prescribed in relevant Rules was followed, the petitioner was granted opportunity of appearance, however, he failed to appear as well as no explanation was mentioned in reply, therefore, the Inquiry Officer on basis of material and on basis of statements of witnesses recorded during the proceedings found all charges to be proved.

12. The inventory prepared after occurrence of fire accident was not much disputed and on basis of details of sale, it was found that less money was deposited as such quantum of amount determined for recovery was also correct.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The petitioner could not deny that a charge-sheet was served upon him and he has submitted his reply, however, no explanation was mentioned except that he wants to change the Inquiry Officer without any substance.

15. During inquiry, it was noted that the petitioner was informed to appear before the Inquiry Officer, however, he opted not to appear. It could not be denied that a sealed lock of the Warehouse was opened in presence of petitioner and others and an inventory was prepared.

16. Petitioner has not raised any dispute to inventory and has put his signatures on it also. He has not disputed the 4 of 6 endorsement, therefore, the inventory prepared on 25.02.2004 could not be challenged at belated stage and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer has rightly considered the same as genuine. In the Inventory, details of stock register and details of food grains found were also specifically mentioned. It was a part of the inquiry as well as a detail chart was also mentioned that material of amount of about Rs.24 lac was sold and the unadjusted amount was about Rs.14 lac. The quantum of stock and corresponding value is also not much disputed by petitioner. The petitioner’s appeal was also decided by a reasoned order after taking note of explanation given by petitioner.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, taking note of The State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 INSC 592, the Court is of the opinion that petitioner was failed to show any legal error in entire process of disciplinary proceedings and during inquiry, principles of natural justice were substantially complied with. The petitioner despite knowledge of inquiry has opted not to appear as well as that Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry on basis of material, and after taking note of evidence, inspection report and inventory, all charges found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority also applied mind and held that petitioner was entirely responsible and has illegally without any order from Competent Authority handed over the charge to Arun Kumar as well as money was embezzled also, therefore, on basis of nature of proved charges, the punishment and amount determined for recovery was awarded also not shockingly disproportionate. 5 of 6

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. September 09, 2025 P. Pandey (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 6 of 6