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

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 Fores t 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 pa rties. 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 disagreem ent on the part of the Disciplinary Authority so far as other char ges, 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 b e bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. Ther efore, once the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56 was held to b e 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 reporte d 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 af oresaid extent and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shal l be no order as to costs. Devika Gujral Appeal partly allowed. UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW & ORS. v. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV & ANR.