A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION
LUCKNOW & ORS.
v.
VIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6947 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Punishment – Charge of causing loss to the
extent of Rs.2.46 lacs was held to be proved by the enquiry officer
– Punishment order for recovery of Rs.2.46 lacs passed – High
Court set aside the punishment order – Held: High Court ought to
have maintained the punishment order once the charge of causing
loss to the extent of Rs.2.46 lacs was held to be proved by enquiry
officer – Therefore, order modified to the extent of maintaining the
order of punishment for recovery of Rs.2.46 lacs for the charge
which was held to be proved by enquiry officer – 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 lacs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6947 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.54718 of 2005.
M. R. Shamshad, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Niaz A.
Farooqui, Advs. for the Appellants.
Yatish Mohan, Achintya Tiwari, Subhash Chandra Sagar, E. C.
Vidya Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 432
432
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
433
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Enquiry
Officer.
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.
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.
Devika Gujral
Appeal partly allowed.
UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION
LUCKNOW & ORS. v. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.
Lex