High Court · 2025

1. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the order passed by this Court the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded by the respondents within four months period even though petitioner has been cooperating in the disciplinary proceedings. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner being Writ - A No. 9651 of 2024 decided on 25.04.2024 is reproduced hereunder: "A personal affidavit has been filed by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow, which is taken on record. Admit. Heard forthwith. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been instituted challenging an order of suspension pending inquiry dated 16.05.2024, corrected vide order dated 22.05.2024, passed by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow. A perusal of the suspension order shows that the summary of charges mentioned there are to the effect that the petitioner while posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at Village Suraini drew a sum of Rs. 87,000/- during the financial year 2018-19 for the purpose of construction of the Junior High School's boundary wall but no work was done. The other charge is that while posted as the Gram Panchayat Adhikari, the petitioner drew a sum of Rs. 2,06,050/- for the construction of a pitch road up to the Junior High School, Suraini, but no work was done. The third charge is a bit vague and says that the petitioner does not carry out the directions and orders of his superiors without a detail of those orders of superiors whose directions were disobeyed. This Court on 18.07.2024 required the Director, Panchayat Raj to file his own affidavit, clearly stating if a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. This order was passed because Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a grievance that though the petitioner has been suspended pending inquiry vide order dated 16.05.2024, a period of two months had lapsed without a charge sheet being served. In the personal affidavit filed today by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow, it is stated that the petitioner has been served with a charge sheet on 23.07.2024. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact and very fairly placed before the Court a photostat copy of the charge sheet dated 23.07.2024 served upon him, signed by the Inquiry Officer/Deputy Director, Panchayat Raj, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and approved by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh. A perusal of the charge sheet shows the following three charges laid against the petitioner: "आररोप ससंख्यया 01 गयाम पसंचयायत अधधिकयाररी कके ततैनयातरी कके ददौरयान गयाम पसंचयायत ससुरतैनरी मम पपूरर मयाध्यममक मरदयालय ककी बयाउसंडररी रयाल मनमयारण हकेतसु ररर 2018-19 मम ईसंट ्ቅय कके नयाम पर रु० 87,000/- ककी मनकयासरी हहई हतै मकन्तसु कयायर नहीሻ करयायया गयया। (सयाቌኚय कके रूप मम धजिलया पसंचयायत रयाजि अधधिकयाररी गरोरखपसुर कके पतयासंक 131, मदनयासंक

08.04.2024 ककी ्ቚमत) आररोप ससंख्यया - 02 गयाम पसंचयायत अधधिकयाररी कके ततैनयातरी कके ददौरयान मपच ररोड सके पपूरर मया० मरदयालय ससुरकेनरी तक खड़न्जिया मनमयारण कयायर करयानके हकेतसु धिनरयामशि रू० 2,06,050/- ककी मनकयासरी ककी गयरी परन्तसु मनमयारण कयायर नहीሻ करयायया जियातया। (सयाቌኚय कके रूप मम धजिलया पसंचयायत रयाजि अधधिकयाररी गरोरखपसुर करो पतयासंक 131, मदनयासंक 08.04.2024 ककी ्ቚमत) आररोप ससंख्यया -03 उच्चयाधधिकयाररयोሱ दयारया मदयके गयके मनदरशिोሱ/आदकेशिोሱ कया पयालन न मकयया जियानया।" These charges are not at all elaborate and are the same as those detailed in the order of suspension impugned. It is argued by Mr. Sanjeev Singh that the impugned suspension order and the disciplinary proceedings are bad because on the self same allegations, the petitioner was earlier proceeded with against by the respondents and an inquiry done by a three member inquiry committee, who submitted a report dated 29.03.2022, holding the petitioner guilty of the first and the second charge, subject matter of the present charge sheet, which figured as charges nos. 2 and 3 in the report of the inquiry committee dated 29.03.2022. A perusal of the said report shows that this report was submitted indeed by a three member committee comprising the Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Khajani, Gorakhpur, Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur and the District Agricultural Officer, Gorakhpur. This Committee held the petitioner guilty of the charge of drawing money for the construction of a boundary wall of the Junior High School but no construction was undertaken at site. Likewise, this Committee also held the petitioner guilty of the charge of drawing a sum of Rs. 2,06,050/- for the purpose of construction of a pitched road leading up to the Junior High School, a work never undertaken. On the basis of the report dated 29.03.2022, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur passed an order of surcharge against the petitioner directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,46,525/- from the petitioner, the other half being apportioned as liability to be made good by the Gram Pradhan. This order of surcharge was challenged before this Court by the petitioner vide Writ-A No. 7547 of 2024 and stayed vide order dated 15.05.2024. The submission of Mr. Sanjeev Singh is that once on the self same allegations the petitioner has been proceeded with against by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power of surcharge under Section 27 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with by the respondents in their disciplinary jurisdiction. Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Singh and says that two proceedings are unrelated. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the purpose and scope of proceeding of surcharge under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, are distinct and different from the employer's right to proceed against an employee in the exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction. While the proceedings for surcharge are designed to recover loss caused to the State by a wrongful act, either of one or the other elected representatives or the officers or servants of the department, the purpose of the disciplinary jurisdiction is to maintain discipline in service and commensurately punish service misconduct. It is quite possible that on the self same allegations, an order of surcharge may be passed, whether valid or not, and on those allegations, disciplinary proceedings may be drawn. This is precisely what has happened here. Incidentally, the order of surcharge has been stayed by this Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction inhering in the District Magistrate to pass that order. To our understanding, that is not at all relevant to the validity of the impugned order of suspension or the disciplinary proceedings pending. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on charges that has led to the passing of an order of surcharge by the respondents, not just to recover the loss occasioned to them by the petitioner's alleged misdoing but to punish the petitioner, if he be guilty of the charges levelled against him. Nothing has been brought to this Court's notice which may bar the holding of disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges which have led to the passing of an order of surcharge. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order of suspension or the disciplinary proceedings on the foot of which it has been passed, cannot be said to be the flawed because earlier the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, was visited with an order of surcharge passed by the District Magistrate. The present proceedings are quite independent of the proceedings of surcharge, as already remarked. In this view of the matter, this submission of Mr. Sanjeev Singh cannot be accepted. The other submission advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Singh is that the order of suspension has been passed on the charges that are not serious enough to warrant suspension pending inquiry. We do not agree. The charges relate to defalcation. We do not mean to say that the charges are true. The truth or the otherwise of the charges are to be determined at the time of hearing at the inquiry where the respondents will bear the burden of proving the charges by leading evidence in the first instance, before calling upon the petitioner to establish his defence. At the same time, it is not for us to say at this stage, if the charges are true or untrue. It is a matter to be dealt with at the inquiry. In our considered opinion, there is no flaw or infirmity in the order impugned. At this stage, Mr. Sanjeev Singh points out that the charge sheet has been issued with a delay of two months. He prays that the proceedings of the inquiry be expedited. In the circumstances, the proceedings of the inquiry shall be expedited and concluded within a period of four months of the date of communication of this order, wherein the petitioner will co-operate. During the period of suspension, the petitioner will receive his subsistence allowance including arrears, if not already paid. The subsistence allowance shall be paid regularly and without asking the petitioner to furnish a non alternative engagement certificate. If the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within a period of four months as directed, it will be open to the petitioner to move this Court again for revocation of the order of suspension on the ground of delay. In terms of the above orders, this writ petition is disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P. at Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."

2. It further transpires from the record that petitioner supplied the copy of the order himself after expiry of four months period on 09.12.2024.

3. In the given facts and circumstances of this case at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the departmental enquiry is concluded and now disciplinary authority is to take decision on the report of enquiry officer.

4. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to immediately approach the disciplinary authority along with the certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today and in the event petitioner files the certified copy of this order, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within next two months' time and petitioner will be cooperating in the final disposal of disciplinary proceedings even in the remaining stage of disciplinary proceedings after departmental enquiry has stood concluded and if despite cooperation of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two months of presentation of certified copy of this order, the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 16.05.2024 shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be reinstated with salary.

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the order passed by this Court the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded by the respondents within four months period even though petitioner has been cooperating in the disciplinary proceedings. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in writ petition earlier filed by the petitioner being Writ - A No. 9651 of 2024 decided on 25.04.2024 is reproduced hereunder: "A personal affidavit has been filed by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow, which is taken on record. Admit. Heard forthwith. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been instituted challenging an order of suspension pending inquiry dated 16.05.2024, corrected vide order dated 22.05.2024, passed by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow. A perusal of the suspension order shows that the summary of charges mentioned there are to the effect that the petitioner while posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at Village Suraini drew a sum of Rs. 87,000/- during the financial year 2018-19 for the purpose of construction of the Junior High School's boundary wall but no work was done. The other charge is that while posted as the Gram Panchayat Adhikari, the petitioner drew a sum of Rs. 2,06,050/- for the construction of a pitch road up to the Junior High School, Suraini, but no work was done. The third charge is a bit vague and says that the petitioner does not carry out the directions and orders of his superiors without a detail of those orders of superiors whose directions were disobeyed. This Court on 18.07.2024 required the Director, Panchayat Raj to file his own affidavit, clearly stating if a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner. This order was passed because Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a grievance that though the petitioner has been suspended pending inquiry vide order dated 16.05.2024, a period of two months had lapsed without a charge sheet being served. In the personal affidavit filed today by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow, it is stated that the petitioner has been served with a charge sheet on 23.07.2024. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact and very fairly placed before the Court a photostat copy of the charge sheet dated 23.07.2024 served upon him, signed by the Inquiry Officer/Deputy Director, Panchayat Raj, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and approved by the Director, Panchayat Raj, Uttar Pradesh. A perusal of the charge sheet shows the following three charges laid against the petitioner: "आररोप ससंख्यया 01 गयाम पसंचयायत अधधिकयाररी कके ततैनयातरी कके ददौरयान गयाम पसंचयायत ससुरतैनरी मम पपूरर मयाध्यममक मरदयालय ककी बयाउसंडररी रयाल मनमयारण हकेतसु ररर 2018-19 मम ईसंट ्ቅय कके नयाम पर रु० 87,000/- ककी मनकयासरी हहई हतै मकन्तसु कयायर नहीሻ करयायया गयया। (सयाቌኚय कके रूप मम धजिलया पसंचयायत रयाजि अधधिकयाररी गरोरखपसुर कके पतयासंक 131, मदनयासंक

08.04.2024 ककी ्ቚमत) आररोप ससंख्यया - 02 गयाम पसंचयायत अधधिकयाररी कके ततैनयातरी कके ददौरयान मपच ररोड सके पपूरर मया० मरदयालय ससुरकेनरी तक खड़न्जिया मनमयारण कयायर करयानके हकेतसु धिनरयामशि रू० 2,06,050/- ककी मनकयासरी ककी गयरी परन्तसु मनमयारण कयायर नहीሻ करयायया जियातया। (सयाቌኚय कके रूप मम धजिलया पसंचयायत रयाजि अधधिकयाररी गरोरखपसुर करो पतयासंक 131, मदनयासंक 08.04.2024 ककी ्ቚमत) आररोप ससंख्यया -03 उच्चयाधधिकयाररयोሱ दयारया मदयके गयके मनदरशिोሱ/आदकेशिोሱ कया पयालन न मकयया जियानया।" These charges are not at all elaborate and are the same as those detailed in the order of suspension impugned. It is argued by Mr. Sanjeev Singh that the impugned suspension order and the disciplinary proceedings are bad because on the self same allegations, the petitioner was earlier proceeded with against by the respondents and an inquiry done by a three member inquiry committee, who submitted a report dated 29.03.2022, holding the petitioner guilty of the first and the second charge, subject matter of the present charge sheet, which figured as charges nos. 2 and 3 in the report of the inquiry committee dated 29.03.2022. A perusal of the said report shows that this report was submitted indeed by a three member committee comprising the Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Khajani, Gorakhpur, Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur and the District Agricultural Officer, Gorakhpur. This Committee held the petitioner guilty of the charge of drawing money for the construction of a boundary wall of the Junior High School but no construction was undertaken at site. Likewise, this Committee also held the petitioner guilty of the charge of drawing a sum of Rs. 2,06,050/- for the purpose of construction of a pitched road leading up to the Junior High School, a work never undertaken. On the basis of the report dated 29.03.2022, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur passed an order of surcharge against the petitioner directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,46,525/- from the petitioner, the other half being apportioned as liability to be made good by the Gram Pradhan. This order of surcharge was challenged before this Court by the petitioner vide Writ-A No. 7547 of 2024 and stayed vide order dated 15.05.2024. The submission of Mr. Sanjeev Singh is that once on the self same allegations the petitioner has been proceeded with against by the District Magistrate in exercise of the power of surcharge under Section 27 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with by the respondents in their disciplinary jurisdiction. Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Singh and says that two proceedings are unrelated. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the purpose and scope of proceeding of surcharge under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, are distinct and different from the employer's right to proceed against an employee in the exercise of their disciplinary jurisdiction. While the proceedings for surcharge are designed to recover loss caused to the State by a wrongful act, either of one or the other elected representatives or the officers or servants of the department, the purpose of the disciplinary jurisdiction is to maintain discipline in service and commensurately punish service misconduct. It is quite possible that on the self same allegations, an order of surcharge may be passed, whether valid or not, and on those allegations, disciplinary proceedings may be drawn. This is precisely what has happened here. Incidentally, the order of surcharge has been stayed by this Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction inhering in the District Magistrate to pass that order. To our understanding, that is not at all relevant to the validity of the impugned order of suspension or the disciplinary proceedings pending. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on charges that has led to the passing of an order of surcharge by the respondents, not just to recover the loss occasioned to them by the petitioner's alleged misdoing but to punish the petitioner, if he be guilty of the charges levelled against him. Nothing has been brought to this Court's notice which may bar the holding of disciplinary proceedings on the same set of charges which have led to the passing of an order of surcharge. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order of suspension or the disciplinary proceedings on the foot of which it has been passed, cannot be said to be the flawed because earlier the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, was visited with an order of surcharge passed by the District Magistrate. The present proceedings are quite independent of the proceedings of surcharge, as already remarked. In this view of the matter, this submission of Mr. Sanjeev Singh cannot be accepted. The other submission advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Singh is that the order of suspension has been passed on the charges that are not serious enough to warrant suspension pending inquiry. We do not agree. The charges relate to defalcation. We do not mean to say that the charges are true. The truth or the otherwise of the charges are to be determined at the time of hearing at the inquiry where the respondents will bear the burden of proving the charges by leading evidence in the first instance, before calling upon the petitioner to establish his defence. At the same time, it is not for us to say at this stage, if the charges are true or untrue. It is a matter to be dealt with at the inquiry. In our considered opinion, there is no flaw or infirmity in the order impugned. At this stage, Mr. Sanjeev Singh points out that the charge sheet has been issued with a delay of two months. He prays that the proceedings of the inquiry be expedited. In the circumstances, the proceedings of the inquiry shall be expedited and concluded within a period of four months of the date of communication of this order, wherein the petitioner will co-operate. During the period of suspension, the petitioner will receive his subsistence allowance including arrears, if not already paid. The subsistence allowance shall be paid regularly and without asking the petitioner to furnish a non alternative engagement certificate. If the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within a period of four months as directed, it will be open to the petitioner to move this Court again for revocation of the order of suspension on the ground of delay. In terms of the above orders, this writ petition is disposed of. Let this order be communicated to the Director, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P. at Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours."

2. It further transpires from the record that petitioner supplied the copy of the order himself after expiry of four months period on 09.12.2024.

3. In the given facts and circumstances of this case at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the departmental enquiry is concluded and now disciplinary authority is to take decision on the report of enquiry officer.

4. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to immediately approach the disciplinary authority along with the certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today and in the event petitioner files the certified copy of this order, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within next two months' time and petitioner will be cooperating in the final disposal of disciplinary proceedings even in the remaining stage of disciplinary proceedings after departmental enquiry has stood concluded and if despite cooperation of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two months of presentation of certified copy of this order, the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 16.05.2024 shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be reinstated with salary.

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad