caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation … vs Vijay Kumar Yadav on 23 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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
Comments