All HC | Court not to interfere in matters where petitioner fails to furnish any explanation to challenge inquiry report

Allahabad High Court: Sunita Agarwal, J. disposed of the writ petition after giving various directions to the Board of Management to expeditiously look into the matter if in any case any representation is filed by the petitioner.

A petition was directed against the inquiry report where the petitioner who was retired from the post of Secretary, Co-operatives Society Limited Gathwaha, was found guilty of misappropriation of Government money. The inquiry report indicated that cash of seven receipts was not deposited by the petitioner in the bank prior to his retirement. The petitioner disputed that there was no proper opportunity to submit his explanation before the inquiry committee. An FIR was also lodged in the police station against the petitioner.

R.K. Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount due against the petitioner was to be adjusted with the view of the decision of the Board of Management of the Co-operative Society and it was also placed before the court that salary due to the petitioner would be adjusted in the recovery if any. It was submitted that in such case the adjustment of Rs 437 was to be made. Lastly, it was contended that in view of the decision taken by the Board of Management of the Co-operative Society, Nawabganj, Farrukahabad, no coercive action can be taken against the petitioner.

The Court opined that as there was no order of recovery on the date of the decision of the Board of Management of the society. There could not be any decision of adjustment of dues of the petitioner against the society in contemplation of recovery of public money.  As the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to furnish any explanation of the petitioner to challenge the findings of the inquiry report this Court does not find any justification to interfere. The petitioner was therefore directed to deposit the entire dues as sought to be recovered pursuant to the inquiry within a period of two months. It was further directed that it would be open for the petitioner to lay his claim for payment of salary, allegedly due from March 2017 to July 2018. It was instructed to the Board of Management of the Co-operative Society to take the decision expeditiously if in any case any representation is filed by the petitioner.[Suresh Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2560, decided on 11-07-2019]

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.