State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. … v. Harish Chandra Yadav on 18 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Mohit Johari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri R. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1419 of 2021 whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed and the punishment order dated 01.06.2021 has been set aside with consequential benefits with a further direction to pay full 2 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 salary for the period of suspension from service i.e. from 28.01.2020 to

31.05.2021.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent herein is a member of the U.P. Finance and Accounts Services and was posted as Senior Treasury Officer in the Government Treasury at Budaun at the relevant point of time. The respondent detected an embezzlement of Rs.5,00,67,110/- related to sale of stamps in Sub Treasury, Tehsil- Dataganj, District-Budaun. The aforesaid embezzlement took place between the year 2014 to 30.09.2019, out of which for the period

15.05.2014 to 05.07.2017 one Shri Pravin Kumar Tripathi was posted as Senior Treasury Officer, Budaun and thereafter w.e.f. 06.07.2017 to

30.09.2019, the respondent herein was working as Senior Treasury Officer, Budaun. The Sub Treasury in tehsils is headed by the Sub Treasury Officer and direct control on the Sub Treasuries is of the District Magistrate of the concerned district.

4. On the complaint made by the respondent herein, in respect of the aforesaid embezzlement, the District Magistrate, Budaun constituted a four members committee, headed by the Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue), Budaun and the said Committee submitted its report to the District Magistrate, Budaun on 17.11.2019. The Committee in its report held that, prima facie, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Cashier, and Accountant, Shri Rajesh Sagar of the Sub Treasury, Dataganj, Budaun are responsible for the embezzlement in question. The District Magistrate, Budaun took a decision on the aforesaid report submitted by the Committee and directed the respondent herein, who was working as Senior Treasury Officer, Budaun to lodge an F.I.R. against the persons, who had embezzled government money and consequently an F.I.R. was registered against two persons, namely, Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Cashier and Accountant, Shri Rajesh Sagar of the Sub Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Budaun.

5. Though the respondent herein was not having any direct control over working of the Sub Treasury of Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun, as the Sub Treasuries run under the control of the District Magistrate of 3 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 the concerned district but the services of the respondent were placed under suspension vide order dated 28.01.2020. A charge-sheet dated

13.03.2020 was served to the respondent containing three charges to which reply was submitted on 11.05.2020. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report on 11.06.2020 wherein, charge nos.2 and 3 were not found proved and charge no.1 was found partially proved only in respect of supervisory lapse on part of the respondent. Thereafter, respondent herein was issued a show cause notice to which he submitted reply to the disciplinary authority on 20.07.2020 and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 01.06.2021 whereby, punishment in the form of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed against the respondent. The respondent herein, challenged the punishment order dated 01.06.2021 by filing Claim Petition No.1419 of 2021 (Harish Chandra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others). The learned Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition No.1419 of 2021 vide its judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 whereby, punishment order dated 01.06.2021 has been set aside with all consequential benefits and further direction has also been issued for payment of full salary and allowances to the respondent herein for the period of his suspension i.e. for 28.01.2020 to 31.05.2021.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal interfered with the punishment order dated

01.06.2021 on procedural grounds i.e. enquiry in the matter of the respondent herein was not conducted as per the provisions made in Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Rules of 1999’) as the Enquiry Officer after receiving reply of the respondent against the charge-sheet did not fix any date, time and place for holding enquiry and straightaway enquiry report dated 11.06.2020 was submitted to the disciplinary authority, therefore, it was obligatory on the learned Tribunal to grant liberty to the petitioners to proceed afresh with the enquiry against the respondent from the stage it is vitiated for non-compliance of the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 but 4 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 learned Tribunal in an illegal manner set aside the punishment order dated 01.06.2021 with all consequential benefits and further direction has been issued for payment of full pay and allowances to the respondent for the period he remained under suspension.

7. It has also been argued that the other ground on which the learned Tribunal interfered with the punishment order dated 01.06.2021 is also procedural in nature that the representation submitted by the respondent before the disciplinary authority was not considered properly and the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a reasoned order, therefore, even if on this count, interference with the punishment could be justified, it was obligatory on the learned Tribunal to grant liberty to the petitioner to proceed afresh with the enquiry against the respondent herein.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that, no doubt, the Sub Treasury in a tehsil is headed by the Sub Treasury Officer and functioning of the Sub Treasury is under control of District Magistrate of the concerned district but under the provisions of the Stamp Manual, the Senior Treasury Officer is also responsible to supervise the sale of stamps in the Sub-Treasury as information relating to inflow of the stamps in the Sub Treasury and the sale of the stamps is reported to the Senior Treasury Officer therefore, once he failed to discharge his supervisory obligation, the disciplinary authority after holding enquiry had passed punishment order dated 01.06.2021 and therefore there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the said order, as such the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1419 of 2021 is unsustainable .

9. Shri Mohit Johari, learned Standing Counsel, during the course of the arguments, could not deny; rather has accepted that an enquiry was conducted by a committee constituted by the District Magistrate, Budaun and enquiry report was submitted wherein, finding has been recorded that the Deputy Cashier and Accountant posted in Sub Treasury, Tehsil- Dataganj, District-Budaun were responsible for the embezzlement of 5 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 government money. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri Jitesh Verma, Sub Treasury Officer/Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on

11.06.2020 wherein, Shri Jitesh Verma, the Sub Treasury Officer, Tehsil- Dataganj, District-Budaun was held responsible the embezzlement of government money but the Board of Revenue U.P. dropped the said disciplinary proceedings vide order dated 22.09.2021 and did not impose any punishment against him. The disciplinary proceedings against other Sub-Treasury Officers, who were posted at the relevant point of time in Sub-Treasury, Tehsil-Dataganj, were initiated but no one has been punished; rather most of them have been exonerated by the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P.

10. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that, no doubt, the Sub-Treasuries in Tehsils are under direct control of the District Magistrate of the concerned district and the Sub-Treasury Officer/Tehsildar is the immediate controlling authority of the Sub- Treasuries but merely because charges leveled against the Sub-Treasury Officers in respect of embezzlement in question have been dropped and no punishment has been imposed against them, the respondent cannot be absolved from the charge of lack of supervisory control under the provisions of the Stamp Manual as it was his duty to carefully examine the record of the Sub-Treasury and in the inquiry it had been found that he did not perform his supervisory duty in a proper manner.

11. Shri Mohit Johari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-State, has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal, which is impugned in this writ petition, deserves to be set aside by this Court.

12. Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, has argued that the enquiry in the matter of the respondent has not been conducted as per the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 as it is admitted between the parties that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the respondent, the enquiry 6 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding enquiry, as such the consequential punishment order stands vitiated due to non- compliance of the procedure of enquiry prescribed under the Rules of

13. It has been argued that after completion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent and he submitted reply to the said show cause notice but his reply has not been considered, whereas it is settled law that once reply to the show cause notice has been given, the disciplinary authority is bound to consider each and every point of the reply.

14. Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that Sub-Treasuries in tehsils are under direct control of the District Magistrate of the concerned district and the Sub-Treasury Officer/Tehsildar is the immediate controlling officer of the Sub-Treasury. It was the respondent, who detected embezzlement in the Sub-Treasury, tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun and reported it to the District Magistrate, Budaun, who constituted a committee for conducting enquiry in the matter. The enquiry committee submitted its report and found that the Deputy Cashier and the Accountant of the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Budaun, were responsible for the embezzlement. On the basis of the enquiry report, the District Magistrate, Budaun directed the respondent herein to lodge an F.I.R. against the Deputy Cashier and Accountant of the Sub-Treasury. It has further been submitted that the Sub-Treasury Officers, who were the immediate controlling officers of the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Budaun, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them, but, later on, the said disciplinary proceedings were dropped on the ground that no charge is made out against them.

15. Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that once no charge has been found proved against the Sub-Treasury Officers, who were the immediate controlling officer of the Sub-Treasury, there is no occasion for the State to hold the respondent herein responsible for lack of 7 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 supervisory control on the Sub-Treasury. He has further argued that it was duty of the Sub-Treasury Officer of the sub treasury concerned to forward the statements of inflow and outflow of the stamp papers based on the single lock and double-lock registers to the Government Treasury and the respondent herein, being Senior Treasury Officer of the Government Treasury was under obligation to sign those statements, therefore, once the Sub Treasury Officers concened have not been found guilty of the charge relating to embezzlement of government money, then, by no stretch of imagination, for the same work, the respondent can be held responsible by saying that he did not exercise his supervisory control over the Sub-Treasury.

16. Learned Senior Advocate has also argued that once the immediate controlling officers of the Sub-Treasury i.e. the Sub-Treasury Officers have not been found guilty of any charge relating to embezzlement of government money and disciplinary proceedings initiated against them have been dropped, there can be no occasion for the State Government to adopt different yardstick in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and to punish him by imposing a major penalty i.e. withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

17. Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the learned Tribunal, after considering each and every aspect of the matter, allowed the Claim Petition No.1419 of 2021 vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2023 which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, therefore, the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

18. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that the respondent herein, while posted as Senior Treasury Officer in the Government Treasury at Budaun, detected the embezzlement of Rs.5,00,67,110 in the Sub- Treasury, Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun during the period from the month of May, 2014 to 30.09.2019. Since the District Magistrate of the district concerned is the controlling officer of the Sub-Treasuries existing 8 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 in tehsils of the district, the respondent immediately informed the District Magistrate, Badaun in respect of the aforementioned embezzlement in the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun. The District Magistrate, Badaun constituted a four-member committee headed by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Badaun. The Committee submitted its report and prima facie found that Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Cashier and Shri Rajesh Sagar, Accountant of the Sub- Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun were responsible for the said embezzlement. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee, directed the respondent herein to lodge an F.I.R. against the erring officials and consequently, an F.I.R. was lodged against Shri Harish Kumar, Deputy Cashier and Shri Rajesh Singh, Accountant of the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun.

19. We take note of the undisputed fact that the Sub-Treasury of Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Badaun was in direct control of the District Magistrate, Badaun and the Sub-Treasury Officer/Tehsildar of Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun was the immediate controlling officer of the said Sub-Treasury.

20. We also take note of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were carried out against the concerned Deputy Cashier and he has been dismissed from service. Disciplinary proceedings were also carried out against the Sub Treasury Officers, who were immediate controlling officer in the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun during the aforesaid period but the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them have been dropped on the ground that no charge is made out against them.

21. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent herein and he was served charge-sheet on 13.03.2020 containing three charges which are delineated as under: "आरोप सं(cid:8)या -1 उप कोषागार, दातागंज, म(cid:19) (cid:20)टा(cid:22)प (cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:25)ी मद म(cid:19) माह मई 2014 से अ(cid:31)टू (cid:24)र 2019 तक !0 50067110/- का ग(cid:24)न सं#ान म(cid:19) आया। इस ग(cid:24)न अव’( म(cid:19) आप माह 20.07.2017 लगातार व*र+ कोषा’(कारी (cid:24)दायू ँ के पद पर काय-रत रहे। इस जांच को 9 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 संपा(cid:23)दत कराये जाने के उपरा/त सं#ान म(cid:19) आया (cid:23)क आप 0ारा (cid:20)टा(cid:22)प मैनुअल 217 के पैरा 112 म(cid:19) दी गयी 3यव(cid:20)थाओं के अनु!प (न-ऋण #ाप के अनुसार मास के लेखे के साथ-साथ एक तालक तथा (cid:23)0तालक पं:जय; म(cid:19) अं(cid:23)कत अवशेष; के अनुसार तैयार (cid:23)ववरण प=; का (cid:23)मलान (cid:23)कये (cid:23)(cid:24)ना ही (cid:23)नर/तर ह(cid:20)ता>*रत (cid:23)कये जाते रहे और (cid:20)टा(cid:22)प की आपूAत (cid:23)नBवरो( जारी करायी जाती रही। य(cid:23)द आप 0ारा अपने कत-3य; और दा’यCव; के D’त सजग रहते हुए समय-समय पर (न-ऋण #ान का (cid:23)मलान (cid:20)याह; म(cid:19) दज- (cid:23)ववरण से कराया गया होता, तो इतनी (cid:24)डी (नराFश का ग(cid:24)न नहG हुआ होता। अतः उI अ(cid:23)नय(cid:23)मतता हेतु आप दोषी हJ। आरोप सं(cid:8)या -2 ँ के व*र+ कोषा’(कारी पद के काय-काल के मKय महालेखाकार उ०D० जनपद (cid:24)दायू इलाहा(cid:24)ाद के 0ारा समय-समय पर (cid:23)कये गये (cid:23)नरी>ण D’तवेदन; म(cid:19) उनके 0ारा उठायी गयी आपNOय; की तट(cid:20)थ अनुपालना न कराने एवं संपरी>ा D’तवेदन; म(cid:19) अं(cid:23)कत आपNOय; का सं#ान न लेने के कारण भी ग(cid:24)नकता-ओं को इतनी (cid:24)Qी राजकीय (नराFश के ग(cid:24)न का अवसर DाR हुआ। अतः उI अ(cid:23)नय(cid:23)मतता हेतु आप दोषी हJ। आरोप सं(cid:8)या -3 जनपद (cid:24)दायू ँ म(cid:19) व*र+ कोषा’(कारी के पद पर रहते हुए आपके 0ारा उप कोषागार दातागंज का समय-समय पर (cid:23)व(cid:20)तृत एवं आकT(cid:20)मक (cid:23)नरी>ण (cid:23)कया जाता रहा, (cid:23)क/तु इन (cid:23)नरी>ण; के (cid:24)ावजूद भी उप कोषागार दातागंज म(cid:19) चली आ रही अ3यव(cid:20)थाएं एवं अ(cid:23)नय(cid:23)मतताय(cid:19) (cid:23)वUमान रही तथा उप रोक(cid:23)Vडया दातागंज एवं (cid:20)याह न(cid:24)ीस 0ारा कै श(cid:24)ुक, Wसगल लाक, ड(cid:24)ल लाक तथा चालान D(cid:23)व(cid:23)X र:ज० एक ही ’तFथ म(cid:19) अलग- अलग (cid:23)नBमत कर रखे गये थे, इनका सं#ान आपके 0ारा नहG Nलया गया। (cid:20)टा(cid:22)प मैनुअल के पैरा 57 तथा 62 एवं 58 म(cid:19) दी गयी 3यव(cid:20)था के अनुसार य(cid:23)द (cid:23)नरी>ण के समय आप 0ारा पूण- सजगता से (cid:20)टा(cid:22)प तथा सं(cid:24)ं’(त पं:जय; एवं चालान; का (cid:23)मलान (cid:23)कया गया होता तो तCसमय ही इस ग(cid:24)न को रोका जा सकता था, (cid:23)क/तु आप 0ारा अपने कत-3य; एवं दा’यCव; का भली-भां’त (cid:23)नव-हन न करने के कारण यह घटना घ(cid:23)टत हुई। "

22. The respondent herein filed his reply to the charge-sheet on

11.05.2020, wherein he denied the charges. The enquiry officer, without complying with the procedure contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 submitted enquiry report on 11.06.2020. The enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place for holding enquiry which is mandatory as per the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999.

23. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report has stated that charges no.2 and 3 have not been found proved and charge no.1 has been found proved partially. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the respondent herein who submitted his reply and thereafter, the disciplinary authority had passed the punishment order dated

01.06.2021, whereby major penalty in the form of withholding two 10 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 increments with cumulative effect has been imposed against the respondent.

24. We find that in the punishment order dated 01.06.2021, the disciplinary authority had accepted that the Sub Treasury, Tehsil- Dataganj, Disstrict Budaun was not under direct control of the respondent herein, as the same was under control of the District Magistrate, Budaun and the Sub Treasury Officer/Tehsildar of Tehsil Dataganj was the immediate controlling officer of the Sub Treasury concerned. The disciplinary authority in the punishment order has also admitted that it was the duty of the Sub Treasury Officer to prepare the statements of inflow and outflow of the stamp papers on the basis of single lock and double lock register and to forward it to the Government Treasury and thereafter in the Government Treasury, the Senior Treasury Officer was also to sign the said statements. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment against the respondent herein, only for the reason that while signing the said statements, he was not vigilant and he lacked in his supervisory control which ultimately resulted in the financial embezzlement in the Sub-Treasury, Tehsil-Dataganj, District-Budaun.

25. We find that the Sub-Treasury Officers, who were immediate controlling officers of the Sub-Treasury concerned, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and the disciplinary authority i.e. Board of Revenue, U.P., ultimately dropped the proceedings and no punishment has been imposed against them.

26. We fail to understand as to how, when the immediate controlling officer of the Sub-Treasury i.e. the Sub Treasury Officers/Tehsildars of the Tehsil concerned have not been found guilty for any charge relating to embezzlement of government money, though they were responsible for overall functioning of the Sub-Treasury and forwarded the statements of inflow and outflow of the stamp papers prepared on the basis of single lock and double lock registers, then, under what circumstances the respondent herein can be punished with major penalty, who was only 11 Writ A No.1670 of 2024 under obligation to sign the statements submitted by the Sub Treasury Officers.

27. Once the statements prepared by the Sub-Treasury Officer/Tehsildars on the basis of entries made in the single lock and double lock registers had been found to be flawless and they have been exonerated from the charges, then how the respondent herein can be held responsible, as he only signed the said statements at the last.

28. We find that the learned Tribunal has set aside the punishment order dated 01.06.2021 not only on procedural ground but also on merits as well, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed with enquiry afresh.

29. We further find that the learned Tribunal has considered each and every point in detail and has recorded a finding that there are procedural flaws in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondent herein and further the learned Tribunal has found that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the main controlling officers of the Sub Treasury i.e. Sub Treasury Officers, had been dropped, therefore, the respondent herein cannot be held responsible for the charge of lack of supervisory control, rightly so.

30. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) 18th November, 2025 akhilesh AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench