High Court · 2025

3. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. The quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charges against the petitioner.

4. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Nigam submits that the appellate authority has passed the reasoned order after due application of mind. The punishment of dismissal is just and valid in the facts of the instant case since the petitioner has been found guilty of financial irregularities. Moreover no defects have been pointed out in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings. Discussions and findings I. Procedural propriety

5. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceedings in the writ petition. In fact the pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose any procedural irregularities which go to the root and vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose any violation of principles of natural justice or procedural defects which prejudice substantial rights of the petitioner in the conduct of the enquiry. Moreover, the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings which are made the writ petition.Consequently this Court concludes that the enquiry was conducted as per procedure established by law. Findings of the Enquiry Officer

6. The sum and substance of the charges and findings in the enquiry report are these. The charge no. 1 is that the petitioner failed to deposit the recovered monies on a daily basis in the treasury account of Nagar Nigam. The aforesaid act amounting to a financial impropriety and act of indiscipline. The enquiry officer upon perusal of the relevant documents and consideration of the defence of the petitioner has found that the petitioner had failed to deposit the amounts, and in some instances made belated deposits of the recovered amounts in the treasury account of the Nagar Nigam. The defence of the petitioner to the effect that he was not aware of the rules which led to the aforesaid act of misconduct was invalidated by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was accordingly found guilty of the first charge.

7. The second charge asserts that the petitioner was issued 19 MAC-2 books in the year 2006. However, he failed to get the aforesaid books audited by the audit department. The enquiry report upon perusal of the records and evidences submitted by the department and consideration of the reply of the petitioner found that 19 MAC-2 books were not got audited by the petitioner. The act of the petitioner amounted grave financial irregularity. The enquiry officer also recommended that better checks and balances be placed in the organization to prevent such financial irregularities occurring in future.

8. Charges no. 3 and 4 pertain to leaving the headquarter without permission, and remaining absent without requisite permission from the authority. The aforesaid charges were not held to be proved against the petitioner. Findings of the Disciplinary Authority

9. Upon indictment by the enquiry officer the petitioner was put to notice by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority considered the material in the record including the reply of the petitioner has passed the impugned order of dismissal. While passing the impugned order the disciplinary authority has examined the nature of misconduct and evidences available in the record. The disciplinary authority has found (on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and reply of the petitioner), that the petitioner did not deposit the recovered amounts in the treasury account of the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner had also failed to get 19 MAC-2 books audited. Both charges were held to be proved and being in the nature of grave financial irregularities caused the disciplinary authority to pass the order of dismissal of the petitioner. Findings of the Appellate Authority

10. The appellate authority has also confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority after a detailed consideration of grounds in the appeal submitted by the petitioner. The appellate authority upheld the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority respectively and confirmed the guilt of the petitioner. Memo of Appeal

11. Only two points have been argued before this Court (i) The appellate authority did not consider the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and (ii) the quantum of punishment i.e. the punishment is disproportionate to the charges against the petitioner.

12. The petitioner has primarily raised the following grounds in the memo of appeal before the appellate authority: i. The petitioner could not deposit the recovered amount as he was unaware of the departmental rules. However, subsequently after realizing his mistake he obtained permission from the competent authority and deposit the amount. ii. The petitioner was given additional duties and was not relieved of the same despite repeated requests. iii. The petitioner faces financial destitution in case he is dismissed from service. iv. The petitioner had to go to Allahabad for pairokari of the cases of the Nagar Nigam due to constant travel his official work suffered.

13. The memo of appeal clearly show that the petitioner had admitted his guilt since he had deposited the amount after the enquiry officer had indicted him of embezzlement. This is virtually an admission of guilt.

14. The aforesaid deposit is not mitigating factor but in a manner guilt can be inferred from the same. Merely because some of the senior officials have been found guilty in the second charge does not in any manner obviate the petitioner of his responsibility. Additional official duties are not an alibi or excuse to commit financial irregularities.

15. Perusal of the findings of the appellate authority show that there was independent application of mind and due consideration of the materials in the record and also the defence of the petitioner. The appellate authority like the disciplinary authority has supported its conclusions with sound reasons. Disproportionality

16. The issue of disproportionality is liable to be decided against the petitioner as charges of financial irregularities and embezzlement are of a grave nature which stood proved against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings by the applicable standards of evidence. The petitioner was also independently indicted by the disciplinary authority and punishment was upheld by the appellate authority. The punishment is commensurate with the the misconduct of the petitioner. In this wake no infirmity in the impugned orders are made out.

17. In wake of the preceding discussion the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Dhananjai DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority did not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. The quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charges against the petitioner.

4. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Nigam submits that the appellate authority has passed the reasoned order after due application of mind. The punishment of dismissal is just and valid in the facts of the instant case since the petitioner has been found guilty of financial irregularities. Moreover no defects have been pointed out in the conduct of the enquiry proceedings. Discussions and findings I. Procedural propriety

5. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceedings in the writ petition. In fact the pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose any procedural irregularities which go to the root and vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose any violation of principles of natural justice or procedural defects which prejudice substantial rights of the petitioner in the conduct of the enquiry. Moreover, the Court cannot go beyond the pleadings which are made the writ petition.Consequently this Court concludes that the enquiry was conducted as per procedure established by law. Findings of the Enquiry Officer

6. The sum and substance of the charges and findings in the enquiry report are these. The charge no. 1 is that the petitioner failed to deposit the recovered monies on a daily basis in the treasury account of Nagar Nigam. The aforesaid act amounting to a financial impropriety and act of indiscipline. The enquiry officer upon perusal of the relevant documents and consideration of the defence of the petitioner has found that the petitioner had failed to deposit the amounts, and in some instances made belated deposits of the recovered amounts in the treasury account of the Nagar Nigam. The defence of the petitioner to the effect that he was not aware of the rules which led to the aforesaid act of misconduct was invalidated by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was accordingly found guilty of the first charge.

7. The second charge asserts that the petitioner was issued 19 MAC-2 books in the year 2006. However, he failed to get the aforesaid books audited by the audit department. The enquiry report upon perusal of the records and evidences submitted by the department and consideration of the reply of the petitioner found that 19 MAC-2 books were not got audited by the petitioner. The act of the petitioner amounted grave financial irregularity. The enquiry officer also recommended that better checks and balances be placed in the organization to prevent such financial irregularities occurring in future.

8. Charges no. 3 and 4 pertain to leaving the headquarter without permission, and remaining absent without requisite permission from the authority. The aforesaid charges were not held to be proved against the petitioner. Findings of the Disciplinary Authority

9. Upon indictment by the enquiry officer the petitioner was put to notice by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority considered the material in the record including the reply of the petitioner has passed the impugned order of dismissal. While passing the impugned order the disciplinary authority has examined the nature of misconduct and evidences available in the record. The disciplinary authority has found (on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and reply of the petitioner), that the petitioner did not deposit the recovered amounts in the treasury account of the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner had also failed to get 19 MAC-2 books audited. Both charges were held to be proved and being in the nature of grave financial irregularities caused the disciplinary authority to pass the order of dismissal of the petitioner. Findings of the Appellate Authority

10. The appellate authority has also confirmed the findings of the disciplinary authority after a detailed consideration of grounds in the appeal submitted by the petitioner. The appellate authority upheld the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority respectively and confirmed the guilt of the petitioner. Memo of Appeal

11. Only two points have been argued before this Court (i) The appellate authority did not consider the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and (ii) the quantum of punishment i.e. the punishment is disproportionate to the charges against the petitioner.

12. The petitioner has primarily raised the following grounds in the memo of appeal before the appellate authority: i. The petitioner could not deposit the recovered amount as he was unaware of the departmental rules. However, subsequently after realizing his mistake he obtained permission from the competent authority and deposit the amount. ii. The petitioner was given additional duties and was not relieved of the same despite repeated requests. iii. The petitioner faces financial destitution in case he is dismissed from service. iv. The petitioner had to go to Allahabad for pairokari of the cases of the Nagar Nigam due to constant travel his official work suffered.

13. The memo of appeal clearly show that the petitioner had admitted his guilt since he had deposited the amount after the enquiry officer had indicted him of embezzlement. This is virtually an admission of guilt.

14. The aforesaid deposit is not mitigating factor but in a manner guilt can be inferred from the same. Merely because some of the senior officials have been found guilty in the second charge does not in any manner obviate the petitioner of his responsibility. Additional official duties are not an alibi or excuse to commit financial irregularities.

15. Perusal of the findings of the appellate authority show that there was independent application of mind and due consideration of the materials in the record and also the defence of the petitioner. The appellate authority like the disciplinary authority has supported its conclusions with sound reasons. Disproportionality

16. The issue of disproportionality is liable to be decided against the petitioner as charges of financial irregularities and embezzlement are of a grave nature which stood proved against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings by the applicable standards of evidence. The petitioner was also independently indicted by the disciplinary authority and punishment was upheld by the appellate authority. The punishment is commensurate with the the misconduct of the petitioner. In this wake no infirmity in the impugned orders are made out.

17. In wake of the preceding discussion the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Dhananjai DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad