High Court · 2025

2. Admittedly the appellant was a class-IV employee. He participated in the interview held on 21.11.2003 for promotion from the post of sub-staff to record clerk. It is alleged that the appellant had qualified for promotion and was placed at serial no.9. The decision of the Senior Divisional Manager, however, was kept in a sealed cover. According to the appellant he was directed to perform the work of verification of cheque, discharge vouchers and claim investigation report etc. A letter dated 25.9.2006 came to be issued by the Senior Divisional Manager pursuant to which the appellant started working as a record clerk. It was later that notices were issued to the appellant on 9.12.2006 asking him to furnish explanation as to how he was performing the work of clerk when he continues to sign in the attendance register of sub-staff. The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice relying upon the order passed by the Senior Divisional Manager dated 25.9.2006. The corporation, however, was not satisfied and ultimately disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on 15.1.2007. Though the appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet and reiterated his previous stand but he did not participate in the inquiry. Treating the act of misconduct attributed to the appellant to be proved the employer has proceeded to terminate his services. Departmental appeal filed in the matter has also been dismissed. Aggrieved by these two orders the appellant approached this Court by filing writ which has ultimately been dismissed.

3. Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the corporation dated

25.9.2006 in which the competent authority on the basis of discussion held by the Senior Divisional Manager with the Chairman of the corporation instructed the appellant to examine the cheque, discharge vouchers, handle inquiry claims as well as other correspondence in the dispatch section. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once this order is acknowledged to have been issued by the competent authority it cannot be said that the appellant had falsely claimed himself as a class-III employee.

4. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the Manager who had issued the order dated 25.9.2006, during inquiry, has stated that he had mistakenly issued such communication. It is further submitted that notwithstanding such stand of the concerned Manager the appellant continued to assert himself as a class-III employee. It is, therefore, submitted that the punishment imposed upon the appellant cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is also stated that false accusations were made by the appellant against the officials of the corporation.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.

6. Admittedly the substantive appointment of the appellant was on class-IV post. He had appeared for promotion in an exercise undertaken by the corporation itself but its result was never declared. The records reveal that the Senior Divisional Manager did issue a letter on 25.9.2006, wherein various clerical works were assigned to the appellant. It is also undisputed that pursuant to such order passed the appellant continued to discharge clerical functions. It was only when his explanation was called that the appellant asserted that the work performed by him was with due authorization of the corporation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was misrepresenting his status.

7. From the materials placed on record it is apparent that the concerned Senior Divisional Manager had authorized the appellant to perform various duties which are otherwise expected to be performed by a class-III employee. Even though such order could not be treated as an order of promotion, stricto sensu, but that in itself would not mean that the appellant had made any misrepresentation or had relied upon any fraudulent document. It may have been an error of judgment in understanding the import of the order dated 25.9.2006 but that in itself cannot be treated to be a misconduct so serious so as to terminate the services of the appellant.

8. The other aspect pressed on behalf of the respondents is that the appellant also made accusations against the senior officers and the management.

9. In para 11 the contents of the petitioner's reply has been noticed. In response to the stand of the concerned Manager that he had inadvertently issued the letter dated 25.9.2006 the appellant contented that issuance of the letter was not on account of any inadvertence. This cannot be construed as an act showing disrespect to the employer. The further stand that the corporation's officials were trying to cause harm to him by manufacturing documents is more in the nature of a defence set up by the appellant rather than any accusations made against the Manager. There is no other misconduct attributed to the appellant.

10. Having considered the submissions raised on behalf of the parties we are of the view that the nature of accusations made against the appellant cannot be construed as a misconduct. The mistake on part of the appellant in treating the letter dated 25.9.2006 permitting him to discharge work of class-IV employee as granting promotion to him to perform could very well be a case of misunderstanding on his part. Treating the order to be promotion at best can be an error of judgment on his part in understanding the import of the order itself. For such error of judgment on part of the appellant in claiming his status to be of a class-III employee the services of the appellant could not have been dismissed. In our considered opinion the punishment imposed upon the appellant is wholly disproportionate to the nature of accusations made against the appellant. On this aspect of the matter we hold that the appeal deserves to succeed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.7.2024 is set aside. The order of punishment passed against the appellant are also quashed.

11. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter back to the employer for passing appropriate order of punishment upon the appellant but since he has retired in 2020 no useful purpose would be served in doing so. The appellant has already suffered on account of impugned action, inasmuch as he has not been allowed to work and is also denied salary for all this period. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the relief to be allowed to the appellant can be appropriately modified.

12. In that view of the matter, we provide that the appellant shall be treated to have continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation. The period between the order of his termination till his superannuation would be treated as period spend on duty. The appellant would also be entitled to all retiral benefits which are found due and payable to him. He shall also be entitled to 50% of the arrears of salary. Such benefit shall be extended within a period of two months from today.

13. Special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 RA RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Admittedly the appellant was a class-IV employee. He participated in the interview held on 21.11.2003 for promotion from the post of sub-staff to record clerk. It is alleged that the appellant had qualified for promotion and was placed at serial no.9. The decision of the Senior Divisional Manager, however, was kept in a sealed cover. According to the appellant he was directed to perform the work of verification of cheque, discharge vouchers and claim investigation report etc. A letter dated 25.9.2006 came to be issued by the Senior Divisional Manager pursuant to which the appellant started working as a record clerk. It was later that notices were issued to the appellant on 9.12.2006 asking him to furnish explanation as to how he was performing the work of clerk when he continues to sign in the attendance register of sub-staff. The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice relying upon the order passed by the Senior Divisional Manager dated 25.9.2006. The corporation, however, was not satisfied and ultimately disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on 15.1.2007. Though the appellant submitted reply to the charge-sheet and reiterated his previous stand but he did not participate in the inquiry. Treating the act of misconduct attributed to the appellant to be proved the employer has proceeded to terminate his services. Departmental appeal filed in the matter has also been dismissed. Aggrieved by these two orders the appellant approached this Court by filing writ which has ultimately been dismissed.

3. Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the corporation dated

25.9.2006 in which the competent authority on the basis of discussion held by the Senior Divisional Manager with the Chairman of the corporation instructed the appellant to examine the cheque, discharge vouchers, handle inquiry claims as well as other correspondence in the dispatch section. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once this order is acknowledged to have been issued by the competent authority it cannot be said that the appellant had falsely claimed himself as a class-III employee.

4. On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that the Manager who had issued the order dated 25.9.2006, during inquiry, has stated that he had mistakenly issued such communication. It is further submitted that notwithstanding such stand of the concerned Manager the appellant continued to assert himself as a class-III employee. It is, therefore, submitted that the punishment imposed upon the appellant cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is also stated that false accusations were made by the appellant against the officials of the corporation.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.

6. Admittedly the substantive appointment of the appellant was on class-IV post. He had appeared for promotion in an exercise undertaken by the corporation itself but its result was never declared. The records reveal that the Senior Divisional Manager did issue a letter on 25.9.2006, wherein various clerical works were assigned to the appellant. It is also undisputed that pursuant to such order passed the appellant continued to discharge clerical functions. It was only when his explanation was called that the appellant asserted that the work performed by him was with due authorization of the corporation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was misrepresenting his status.

7. From the materials placed on record it is apparent that the concerned Senior Divisional Manager had authorized the appellant to perform various duties which are otherwise expected to be performed by a class-III employee. Even though such order could not be treated as an order of promotion, stricto sensu, but that in itself would not mean that the appellant had made any misrepresentation or had relied upon any fraudulent document. It may have been an error of judgment in understanding the import of the order dated 25.9.2006 but that in itself cannot be treated to be a misconduct so serious so as to terminate the services of the appellant.

8. The other aspect pressed on behalf of the respondents is that the appellant also made accusations against the senior officers and the management.

9. In para 11 the contents of the petitioner's reply has been noticed. In response to the stand of the concerned Manager that he had inadvertently issued the letter dated 25.9.2006 the appellant contented that issuance of the letter was not on account of any inadvertence. This cannot be construed as an act showing disrespect to the employer. The further stand that the corporation's officials were trying to cause harm to him by manufacturing documents is more in the nature of a defence set up by the appellant rather than any accusations made against the Manager. There is no other misconduct attributed to the appellant.

10. Having considered the submissions raised on behalf of the parties we are of the view that the nature of accusations made against the appellant cannot be construed as a misconduct. The mistake on part of the appellant in treating the letter dated 25.9.2006 permitting him to discharge work of class-IV employee as granting promotion to him to perform could very well be a case of misunderstanding on his part. Treating the order to be promotion at best can be an error of judgment on his part in understanding the import of the order itself. For such error of judgment on part of the appellant in claiming his status to be of a class-III employee the services of the appellant could not have been dismissed. In our considered opinion the punishment imposed upon the appellant is wholly disproportionate to the nature of accusations made against the appellant. On this aspect of the matter we hold that the appeal deserves to succeed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 15.7.2024 is set aside. The order of punishment passed against the appellant are also quashed.

11. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter back to the employer for passing appropriate order of punishment upon the appellant but since he has retired in 2020 no useful purpose would be served in doing so. The appellant has already suffered on account of impugned action, inasmuch as he has not been allowed to work and is also denied salary for all this period. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the relief to be allowed to the appellant can be appropriately modified.

12. In that view of the matter, we provide that the appellant shall be treated to have continued in service till he attained the age of superannuation. The period between the order of his termination till his superannuation would be treated as period spend on duty. The appellant would also be entitled to all retiral benefits which are found due and payable to him. He shall also be entitled to 50% of the arrears of salary. Such benefit shall be extended within a period of two months from today.

13. Special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 RA RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad