Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Deepak Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondents
Writ A No.4054 of 2022
Decided on : 05-08-2022
Vigilance Inquiry - Allegations of Corruption - U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966, Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Government Orders dated 9th May, 1997 and 1st August, 1997 - The court discussed the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966, and the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 21. The court also examined the Government Orders dated 9th May, 1997 and 1st August, 1997, and their interpretations in the context of initiating a vigilance inquiry against the petitioner. The legal provisions influenced the court's decision regarding the validity of the vigilance inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Engineer, was subjected to multiple inquiries based on allegations of corruption and amassing disproportionate assets. The State Government initiated an open vigilance inquiry against the petitioner, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vigilance inquiry was initiated based on serious allegations and that the provisions of the Government Orders were directory, not mandatory. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim of 'double jeopardy' and harassment, concluding that the vigilance inquiry was a fact-finding process and did not amount to harassment at that stage.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the vigilance inquiry, the applicability of the Government Orders, and the petitioner's claim of 'double jeopardy' and harassment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the vigilance inquiry was valid, the Government Orders were directory, and the principle of 'double jeopardy' did not apply. The court also emphasized that the vigilance inquiry was a fact-finding process and did not constitute harassment at that stage.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra as well as Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed order passed by the State Government dated 27.04.2022, whereby an open inquiry is sought to be conducted by the Vigilance Establishment on the ground that respondents have already conducted an inquiry with regard to same allegations and no material was found against the petitioner and hence the proceedings were concluded in favour of the petitioner and by means of impugned order the petitioner is sought to be victimised and harassed yet again by holding vigilance inquiry.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the ex-cadre post of Assistant Director, City Cleansing Department, Nagar Malapalika, Kanour in the year 1991. Subsequently, petitioner's services were absorbed in the vacant post of Assistant Engineer (E/M) inthe cadre of Centralized Services created under Rule 3 of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 and was further confirmed by order dated 11.05.1994. He was then promoted to the post of Chief Engineer (E/M) in 2016.
4. A complaint dated 25.04.2017, was made against the petitioner by one Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate alleging that petitioner while discharging his duties as Chief Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Lucknow had amassed huge property by corrupt means. On the basis of aforesaid complaint an inquiry was initiated by the State Government by order dated 15.11.2017. The inquiry was conducted by Economic Offences Wing Organization, Lucknow. In the said inquiry written and oral evidences were led and inquiry report was submitted on 14.06.2019. In the said inquiry report allegations against the petitioner could not be proved. The inquiry report was duly forwarded by the Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences who vide letter dated 21.06.2019, informed the State Government that allegations regarding financial irregularities and financial embezzlement has not been proved but, for some other minor misconduct recommended for initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 09.10.2019 was given seeking his response. The State Government considering reply of the petitioner dated 27.02.2020 and 13.03.2020, passed an order dated 13.06.2020, whereby minor penalty of "censure entry" was imposed against the petitioner.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that yet another complaint dated 09.08.2019 has been made by one Dr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate to the Chief Minister, U.P. levelling similar allegations of accumulating assets disproportionate to petitioner's known source of income. The said complaint has resulted in passing of the impugned order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
7. The complaint made by Dr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate resulted in an inquiry by the Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow. After conducting the inquiry, a report was submitted on 03rd June, 2021, which is marked as "confidential" document and has been annexed alongwith the writ petition. In the inquiry report Superintendent of Police, U.P. Vigilance Establishment records that a complaint was received from Dr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate alleging that the petitioner has amassed huge wealth and property for himself as well as in the name of his relatives to the tune of nearly Rs.500 Crores.
8. During the inquiry it was found that income of the petitioner from all known sources was around Rs.1,06,67,598/- and he has acquired certain properties in Nainital and also that he has certain LIC policies. The income and assets of his wife were also taken into account and considered that petitioner has received remittances from his relatives living in UK, which has been shown to
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966, and the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 21, along wit....
Point of Law : Civil Services - Open vigilance enquiry - Enquiry having come to its logical ends by either resulted into punishment of employee concerned or exoneration, matter should come to an end ....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring the accused has the opportunity to contest evidence; reliance on a preliminary inquiry report without proper associatio....
(1) Enquiry at pre-FIR stage is held to be permissible and desirable, more particularly in cases where allegations are of misconduct of corrupt practice acquiring assets/properties disproportionate t....
Forgery - Quash of FIR - Rights of petitioner - While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and, in any case, it should not exceed....
The charges against the petitioner did not constitute misconduct, and the finding of the enquiring authority was unsustainable due to lack of evidence and legal infirmity. The impugned order of dismi....
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
