Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, J.
Smt. Hansraja Singh – Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ A. No. 46682 of 2017
Decided On : 27-10-2017
Embezzlement - Termination of Service - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 63(3) - The court discussed the admissibility of a photostat copy of a receipt as secondary evidence under Section 63(3) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court also considered the opportunity of hearing provided to the accused during the disciplinary proceeding.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the orders terminating her husband's service as a Collection Amin and to obtain arrears of salary and other benefits. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her husband for embezzlement of funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the photostat copy of the receipt was admissible as secondary evidence and that the accused was provided with proper opportunity of hearing during the disciplinary proceeding.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of the photostat copy of the receipt and the adequacy of the opportunity of hearing provided to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the photostat copy of the receipt was admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63(3) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The court also found that the accused was provided with proper opportunity of hearing during the disciplinary proceeding.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the termination of service of the accused.
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, J.
Heard, Sri Shekhar Kumar Yadav, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for State of U.P.
2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 01.03.2007, terminating Lal Pratap Singh (husband of the petitioner) from service of Collection Amin and the Collector dated 23.08.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against aforesaid order and for mandamus directing the respondents to pay arrears of salary till death, retiral and other consequential benefits to the petitioner.
3. Lal Pratap Singh (husband of the petitioner) was appointed on the post of Collection Amin by way of stop-gap arrangement on temporary basis on 31.10.1986, in tahsil Karchhana, district Allahabad. One Ram Prasad Dwivedi son of Ram Kishor Dwivedi, resident of village Chak Shobharam, tahsil Karchhana, district Allahabad made a complaint against Lal Pratap Singh that he had deposited Rs. 623.35/- with Lal Pratap Singh towards irrigation dues, who had issued receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989 to him. However in treasury only Rs. 23.35/- was deposited. On this complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Naib Tahsildar, who found that Lal Pratap Singh issued receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989 to Ram Prasad Dwivedi, in which amount of Rs. 623.35/- has been mentioned in his hand writing, while in counter foil of receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989 Rs. 23.35/- was mentioned and same amount was deposited in treasury. Thus Lal Pratap Singh has committed embezzlement of Rs. 600/-. Thereafter, Collector by order dated 07.12.1991, initiated disciplinary proceeding against Lal Pratap Singh, suspended him and appointed Tahsildar Karchhana as Inquiry Officer.
4. Inquiry Officer served a charge sheet upon Lal Pratap Singh. Lal Pratap Singh then moved an application dated 05.02.1992 before Inquiry Officer that copies of receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989, its counterfoil and report of preliminary inquiry be supplied to him. On which Tahsildar asked Revenue Accountant to permit Lal Pratap Singh to inspect the aforementioned documents. It may be mentioned that during preliminary inquiry Naib Tahsildar obtained a photostat copy of receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989 from the complainant and got it attested after tallying with original receipt, which was on record. Lal Pratap Singh inspected photostat copies of receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989, its counterfoil and report of preliminary inquiry on 14.02.1992. Lal Pratap Singh then made an endorsement in his application dated 05.02.1992 that he had demanded original receipt but was shown its photostat copy. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 17.02.1992, in which he again demanded papers on the basis of which charge was framed against him. Inquiry Officer served an additional charge sheet upon Lal Pratap Singh on 10.03.1992 that he in capacity of Collection Amin recovered Rs. 3033/- from a farmer of village Naugawapura, Patel Nagar, tahsil Karchhana and issued a printed deposit slip of the bank dated 11.12.1991 to the farmer under his own signature but had not deposited that amount in the bank. Lal Pratap Singh did not submit any reply to additional charge sheet nor co-operated with the inquiry. Inquiry Officer conducted an ex parte inquiry. He wrote a letter to Ram Prasad Dwivedi for supplying original receipt No. 08362 dated 10.09.1989 but he had not given original receipt. Thereafter, he submitted his report dated 21.04.1992, holding Lal Pratap Singh as guilty of taking Rs. 623.35/- from Ram Pratap Dwivedi towards irrigation dues and depositing Rs. 23.35/- only in treasury and taking Rs. 3033/- from a farmer of village Naugawapura, Patel Nagar, tahsil Karchhana and issuing a printed deposit slip of the bank dated 11.12.1991 to the farmer under his own signature and not depositing that amount in the bank or government treasury.
5. After receipt of Inquiry Report dated 21.04.1992, Sub-Divisional Officer issued a second show cause notice to
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
