Raj Pal vs Hon''ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard, Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.

Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

This writ petition has been filed by a Class-IV employee working on the post of Chaukidar (Night Guard) in the District Judgeship of Farrukhabad. While discharging his duties an incident took place on 7th April, 2007 at about 2.30 a.m. in the night when thieves allegedly attempted to fell sandal trees inside the campus of the Civil Court at Farrukhabad. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was not diligent in his duties, which resulted in such an incident and consequently, a punishment was awarded on 29th May, 2007 by the District Judge reducing the petitioner to his initial stage of pay scale with no increment Against the punishment order, the petitioner approached the High Court on the Administrative side by filing an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed, communication whereof was made by the High Court on 13th August, 2008/20.8.2008.

Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel, for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of a report which was subsequently changed under the orders of the District Judge and the charges were framed against the petitioner without there being any evidence to support the charges. Learned Counsel contends that three employees were allegedly named in the said incident namely Mahesh Chandra, the petitioner and one Ved Ram. He submits that Mahesh Chandra has been exonerated and therefore, the petitioner who was also facing the same set of charges and same set of evidence, ought not to have been punished.

The submission in essence is that the petitioner has been discriminated and the punishment has been meted out against the evidence on record.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that so far as Mahesh Chandra is concerned, he was exonerated on the ground that the tree, which had allegedly been felled by the thieves, was not within the operational area of Mahesh Chandra even though he acted diligently in chasing the thieves. It is further submitted that the subsequent inquiry report, which is a final inquiry report, dated 17.5.2007 is against the petitioner and therefore, the punishment awarded is perfectly justified.

I have considered the submissions and perused the records. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Tripathi submitted a report on 16.5.2007, a copy of the said report is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The said report exonerates the petitioner in view of the explanation submitted by him on 9.4.2007. The petitioner has categorically stated in his explanation that he had chased the thieves along with Mahesh Chandra and had also informed the authorities about the same, upon which an action was taken and a first information report was also promptly lodged. From the records, it appears that the District Judge passed a fresh order directing the Enquiry Officer to submit 4 another report and the same Enquiry Officer, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Tripathi on the very next day submitted a report against the petitioner holding him responsible for the said incident. To my mind, this overnight change of opinion appears to have been at the instance of the learned District Judge without there being any new material for such a report being submitted against the petitioner.

A perusal of the previous report dated 16.5.2007, which is more detailed, clearly indicates that Mahesh Chandra shouted, upon which the petitioner immediately responded and both of them chased the thieves. The thieves ran away and could not succeed in their attempt of theft. The aforesaid fact of the petitioner''s presence and chasing the thieves is, therefore, corroborated by the evidence of Mahesh Chandra and hence, the change in the inquiry report is absolutely unwarranted and in view of the aforesaid evidence on record, which could not be successfully controverted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, this in my opinion, is a clear case of victimization of the petitioner and violation of the principles of fair play. The subsequent enquiry report and the punishment order are both founded on irrelevant considerations and against the weight of evidence on record. In short the same suffers from perversity. The order of punishment is, therefore, unjust and is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order dated 29.5.2007 as well as the appellate order dated 13.8.2008 are quashed.

The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits which shall I be made available to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

The writ petition is allowed.