Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Krishna Kant Gupta vs State Of U P & Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|07 November, 2017
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4703 of 2016 Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohit Singh,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivam Yadav for the U.P. .State warehousing Corporation.
The pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been perused.
The petitioner is working on the post of Technical Officer in U.P. Warehousing Corporation. He has filed this petition challenging the order of punishment dated 30.12.2015 by which a sum of Rs. 23,92,444.34 P is directed to be recovered from him for the loss caused to the stock of food-grains during the year 1999-2000 to 2009-2010. The aforesaid order has been passed on the basis of inquiry report dated 8.4.2015.
A bare perusal of the inquiry report reveals that it without assigning any reason whatsoever concludes that the petitioner is guilty for the loss of food-grains. Thereafter, it states that loss of food-grains is 2537.61383 Quental amounting to Rs. 23,92,444.34 P.
The aforesaid report neither records any reason for holding the petitioner guilty for the loss of grains nor refer to any material on the basis of which the quantity of loss and amount of loss has been determined.
The said inquiry report has been taken to be correct and forms the basis for ordering the recovery of Rs. 23,92,444.34 P.
The inquiry report is not only unreasoned but is cryptic and is totally arbitrary in nature which cannot be sustained in law. It does not even states the basis on which the loss of food grains has been determined and quantified and if the said material was made available to the petitioner.
Accordingly, no order could have been passed for punishment and to recover any amount.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.5.2015 is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 7.11.2017 / Manoj
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Judges
  • Pankaj Mithal
Advocates
  • Ashutosh Tripathi