AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners are legal representatives of a deceased Government servant. During his lifetime he suffered disciplinary proceedings and award of punishment. After his death petitioners applied to the Tribunal supporting their claim petition, for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution. By order dated 22nd April, 2026 the Tribunal rejected the applications. Hence, petitioners are before us represented by Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha. Mr. Mohan Srivastava, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears for State.
We had required the department to make English translation of impugned order dated 10th May, 2006. It was made. We record our appreciation.
On perusal of the English translation we find, the deceased government servant was charged with causing payment of compensation amounting to Rs.60,261/- in respect of the land, to an imposter. It was alleged that on 12th January, 1996, while posted at Dhariwala Gair Ahatmali the charged officer (CO) had identified and authenticated an imposter as Nathu, son of Purna, thereby facilitating disbursement of the compensation to a fictitious person. The CO in defence said, the signatures verifying the bill were not his and he was not posted in that area on the date. The alleged imposter was identified in office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the former Gram Pradhan. A learned advocate had also identified the person. The imposter had also appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and submitted his affidavit stating that the identifications had been so made.
The punishment order relies on opinion of the expert, who compared specimen signature obtained from the CO with the photocopy signatures. Contention of the CO that he was not present in the post on the date was not dealt with.
To our mind, expert opinion and its evidentiary value has its place. In this case, the deceased had specifically asserted he was not posted in that area on the date. He was alleged to have identified and authenticated the imposter. On perusal of impugned order we do not find anything regarding this assertion of the deceased, as dealt with in the disciplinary proceedings. He was awarded punishment solely on basis of expert opinion given by the handwriting expert, on comparison of specimen signature obtained with photocopy of the signature alleged to be his. We have not been shown otherwise by Mr. Srivastava.
At trial there was necessity of first establishing that the deceased was at the table in passing the file. It was to be first shown that the deceased was in the position to have identified the imposter. The expert opinion on his signatures could then be relied upon at corroborative evidence. In the circumstances, we are unable to sustain the punishment order. Being the writ Court, we can mould the relief.
Punishment order dated 10th May, 2006 is set aside and quashed. There is no question of restoration as the person is dead. Petitioners are entitled to obtain consequential relief in respect of service rendered by the deceased. They will communicate certified copy of this judgment to respondent no. 4 (the Sub Divisional Magistrate) alongwith their application. Within eight weeks therefrom, the outstanding benefits be disbursed to petitioners upon verifying their entitlement to receive the same.
The writ petition is disposed of.