Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. vs Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6947 OF 2021

Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Lucknow & Ors. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Vijay Kumar Yadav & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.54718 of 2005, Uttar Pradesh Forest

Corporation Lucknow and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated

03.07.2019, this Court issued notice limited to the extent as to whether

the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for

recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.11.23 17:17:36 IST

Enquiry Officer.

Reason:

1 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in so far as the charge

of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved

by the Enquiry Officer. However, there was disagreement on the part of

the Disciplinary Authority so far as other charges, which were held to be

not proved by the Enquiry Officer and without issuing any notice on the

said disagreement, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded further and

passed the punishment order, which was held to be bad in law and

against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, once the charge of

causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56 was held to be proved by

the Enquiry Officer, the High Court ought to have maintained the

punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56.

5. In view of the above, we modify the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court to the extent of maintaining the order of

punishment for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56 for the charge which was

also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. It is reported that the

respondent employee has since retired on attaining the age of

superannuation. Therefore, whatever further amount is due and payable

towards the retirement benefits, which may be available under the law,

the same may be paid to the respondent after making

recovery/deducting Rs.2,46,922.56.

2

6. Present appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order

as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 23, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

3