High Court · 2025 on 09 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. ्቞ुख्य परिरयो钶샗ना ्ቚबन्Cक, विन>ेशक काया(cid:14)लय ्ሺाप ⷅ┼撫厄० 838 वि>ना撫厄क 29.11.2017 इलाहाबा> ्ቦɜᑿ 膢ꖋɜᑿ०आर० वि(cid:2)्ቕाथ/ का ्ቚबन्C

2. 28.01.2016 उप परिरयो钶샗ना ्ቚबन्Cक ्ቦɜᑿ न(cid:2)ा> िሺⷅ┼ह का पSाक 19 钶샗ɜᑿ०ए्቞० वि>नाक एय काया(cid:14)लय ्ሺाप ⷅ┼० 696, वि>ना撫厄क 13.09.2018 या撫厄विSक इकाॠ᭝,

3. 钶샗ाँच ⷅ┼म्बन्Cɜᑿ काया(cid:14)लय ्ሺाप 820 वि>ना撫厄क 21.11.2017 इलाहाबा> के लेखा्ቚभारɜᑿ ्ቦɜᑿ वि(cid:2)钶샗य कु ्቞ार ्ቦɜᑿ(cid:2)ास्#(cid:2) क᮷᭽ उपरो臊訙 #थ्यं५ के बा> भɜᑿ यवि> क቞ኌ्቞यं५ पर विनग्቞ ्ቛारा आ撫厄 कलिल# वि(cid:2)्ቈɜᑿय हाविन क᮷᭽ (cid:2)ⷅ┼ूलɜᑿ का विन폸(cid:14)य लिलया 钶샗ा#ा है और उⷅ┼ⷅ┼े क቞ኌ्቞यं५ ्ቛारा उ臊訙 विन폸(cid:14)य के वि(cid:2)रू꼼쇅 न्यायालय क᮷᭽ शर폸 ले#ा है #ो विनग्቞ को अपने लिलए गये वि(cid:2)्ቈɜᑿय हाविन के विन폸(cid:14)य को उडिच# ्ቚ्቞ाशि폸# करना कविठन होगा攺屝 अ(cid:2)र गु폸(cid:2)्ቈा क᮷᭽ आपूቔኌ# लेने हे#ु ⷅ┼हायक अशिभयन्#ा (यं५विSक)

3. अशिभयन्#ा (याँविSक) ⷅ┼ुⷅ┼撫厄ग# ्ቚस्#र उद्‌Cृ# करने हे#ु 钶샗ाँच अडिCकारɜᑿ को विन>dशिश# विकया 钶샗ाय攺屝 ए(cid:2)撫厄 अ(cid:2)र इⷅ┼के ⷅ┼म्बन्C ्቞斶湠 (cid:2)ኌᭇकग ्቞ैनुअल का उ्ቈर>ायɜᑿ नह睵漅 है, विनCा(cid:14)रिर# उ्ቈर>ाडियत्य ⷅ┼ा्቞ान्य#ा विन्቞ा(cid:14)폸 काय(cid:14), (cid:2)ኌᭇकग ्቞ैनुअल के ्ቚस्#र 200 (cid:2) 201 के #था लेखा撫厄कन आवि> ⷅ┼े ⷅ┼म्बቝኌन्C# है, अशिभयन्#ा (या) के स्प9 उ्ቈर>ाडियत्(cid:2) का उ्ቤेख नह睵漅 है攺屝 ्቞斶湠 ⷅ┼हायक अशिभयन्#ा/ अ(cid:2)र अशिभयन्#ा उⷅ┼क᮷᭽ काय(cid:14) यो钶샗ना, ्ቚगडि# उन्቞斶湠 ⷅ┼हायक अशिभयन्#ा (या) अ(cid:2)र परिर(cid:2)ा> (cid:2)ग(cid:14) ⷅ┼े अपचारɜᑿ अडिCकारɜᑿ/ क्቞(cid:14)चारɜᑿ के ्ቚडि#(cid:2)े>न ए(cid:2)撫厄钶샗ाँच ⷅ┼्቞ɜᑿ्ቌा के ⷅ┼ुझा(cid:2) के ;्቞ ्቞斶湠 अपचारिरयं५ के अपने बचा(cid:2) प्ቌ रखे 钶샗ाने हे#ु अቝኌन्#्቞ अ(cid:2)ⷅ┼र वि>ना撫厄क 17.02.2022 को ्ቚ>ान कर#े हुए व्यवि臊訙ग# ⷅ┼ुन(cid:2)ाॠ᭝ हे#ु अCोहस्#ा्ቌरɜᑿ ्ቛारा ⷅ┼म्बቝኌन्C# को बुलाया गया攺屝 उनको अपने अቝኌन्#्቞ लिललिख# बयान ए(cid:2)撫厄 ⷅ┼ाቌኚय अशिभलेख यवि> कोॠ᭝ हो, उपलब्C कराने #था ्ቚकर폸 ⷅ┼म्बन्Cɜᑿ ्ቚ्቞ं५ पर अपना कथन लिललिख# रूप ्቞斶湠 ्቞ा撫厄गे गये攺屝 ्ቚा漽肧 ्ቚ्቞ो्ቈर ्቞य ⷅ┼ाቌኚय अशिभलेखं५ ⷅ┼विह# ⷅ┼撫厄ल鎫꽂 कर ्ቚेवि्ቧ#攺屝" 6

8. Disciplinary Authority did not pass any order on both the inquiry reports and instead constituted a three member committee to determine financial loss. Said three member committee submitted its Report on 29.8.2022, whereby a loss of Rs.20 lakhs was determined and accordingly 60 percent of financial liability i.e. about Rs. 12 lakhs was fixed on the petitioner.

9. On basis of above referred documents and reports, an Office Memorandum dated 23.9.2022 was passed whereby a liability of Rs.12 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner with a direction to recover it.

10. Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal, but same was dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2025. Both the orders dated 23.9.2022 and

20.2.2025 are impugned in the present case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the inquiry report dated 28.1.2016, petitioner was found that he has not discharged his duties to scrutinize sheet files and it was found not to be designed as per specification, however no financial loss was reported as well as Disciplinary Authority has not passed any order after show cause notice was issued and reply was submitted by petitioner as well as other delinquents charged with similar charges were exonerated.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as other delinquents are concerned, no financial loss was reported.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that de-hors of procedure, supplementary charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein without any basis, a charge was levelled against the petitioner to determine financial loss. However, in the 7 supplementary inquiry report dated 18.2.2021, petitioner was exonerated from said charges, but still de-hors of rules, Appointing Authority made objection to said supplementary inquiry report and sought clarifications from Inquiry Officer vide letter dated

22.7.2021. Again by a report dated 4.4.2022, Inquiry Officer reported that there was no financial loss, but still Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order dated 23.9.2022 after considering reply of petitioner to fresh show cause notice and determined that there was a financial loss of Rs.20 lakhs/- and accordingly liability up to 60% was fixed upon the petitioner.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid order was based on a fresh report of a three member committee. The constitution of a three member committee was not only de-hors Rules, but it was an ex-parte report and no reason was assigned to take a contrary view to the two reports of the Inquiry Officer that there was no financial loss.

15. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the repeated inquiry, petitioner was found guilty of charge that sheet piles purchased for the purpose of construction were not as per the design and specification, therefore it were not utilised in the construction. So far as financial loss is concerned, Inquiry Officer has given reasons which were not found genuine, therefore a Three Member Committee was constituted to determine financial loss and it was determined on basis of prescribed procedure and nothing has been brought on record to contradict the same.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

17. Petitioner has suffered with inquiry report where in charges levelled against him were found to be proved that he has not 8 discharged his duties diligently and has not inspected the sheet piles which were not found as per requisite design and specification. No third party audit was conducted.

18. Petitioner was further suffered with a supplementary inquiry report, however at that stage again it was held that no financial loss was determined on a ground that some of the sheet piles were returned back and remaining sheet piles could be sold as scrapped and its depreciated value does not show any financial loss.

19. The Appointing Authority has taken note of both the Inquiry Reports and in order to determine financial loss a Three Member Committee was constituted.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred contents of said reports as well as of Three Member Committee so constituted. However, it appears that petitioner was not put on notice to the action taken subsequent to the inquiry report whereby, no financial loss was caused, therefore, in case respondents proceed to act upon the Three Member Committee Report, then petitioner ought to have put on notice to submit his reply to the reasons assigned which were contrary to earlier two Inquiry Reports.

21. Court also takes note of supplementary inquiry report wherein it was observed that there was no financial loss caused and a detail calculation was made, therefore, in case Appointing Authority wants to take a contrary view, it must assign reasons however, there is no document on record which assigns such reason except by the impugned order financial loss was allegedly determined.

22. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to confront with any communication or reason to take a contrary view to the first 9 inquiry and supplementary inquiry report, therefore, Court is of the view that impugned orders require interference. Principles of natural justice were violated as well as decision making process became defective. Appellate Authority has also, therefore, committed error.

23. Accordingly impugned orders dated 23.9.2022 and 20.2.2025 are set aside and matter is remanded to Disciplinary Authority to commence inquiry at the stage to confront the petitioner with reasons to take a contrary view to Inquiry Reports whereby, no financial loss was determined including Three Members Report.

24. With aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 09.7.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad