- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-5-2002 passed by the Managing Director of U. P. State Handloom Corporation, Kanpur Nagar refusing to implement and issue consequential administrative orders, in pursuance of the order of Chairman of the Corporation allowing the departmental appeal of the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 22-10-2001. The Chairman did not interfere with the direction to recover Rs. 43,843. 62 towards the loss caused to the Corporation.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are, that the petitioner was serving as Store Keeper at Mathura Chhapai Kendra. He was charge-sheeted for financial irregularities causing loss to the Corporation. The Inquiry Officer, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, submitted an inquiry report dated 27-6-1998. He found the first charge of reduction of stock and embezzlement of Rs. 8,15,819. 15 in connivance with the Centre Incharge Sri Gulbashar established indirectly against the petitioner. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 regarding misappropriation of Rs. 87, 687. 25 in the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 from various printing units alongwith Sri Guvashar and reduction of the stock of textile of Rs. 4,14,550. 35 from various printing units was also found established against the petitioner and Sri Gulbashar, and a second show cause notice dated 21-6-1994 was issued to the petitioner to which he did not submit any reply. The Managing Director/disciplinary Authority agreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and while dismissing petitioner's services with immediate effect directed recovery of loss from him. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation. The appeal was allowed by the Chairman on 3-4-2002 by a reasoned order. The Appellate Authority found that the Inquiry Officer had accepted the fact that the goods were given to the printing units and that the realization should have been made by the Corporation in accordance with agreement with these units. The Appellate Authority found that the entire blame cannot be put on the petitioner and recording a finding that the petitioner was diligent and had taken steps to record the amount. The Chairman set aside the order dismissing petitioner from service, and a direction was issued to reinstate him in service. The Chairman, however, did not interfere with the order of recovery of Rs. 43843. 62 from the amount payable to the petitioner. The Managing Director of the Corporation has refused to implement the Appellate Order. He found that no administrative action is required to be taken in pursuance of the Government Order dated 3-5- 2001.
(3.) THIS writ petition was heard alongwith Petition No. 22308 of 2002 between Jagdish Narain Katiyar v. U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and others. In this writ petition almost the same legal question was involved. The Managing Director has refused to implement the appellate order on the ground that by a Government Order No. 11958/1831 dated 3-5-2001, the Chairman was deprived of the appellate power and thus the order of the Chairman was not required to be implemented. After hearing parties and perusing the documents including Government Order dated 3-5-2001 and resolution of the Corporation as well as the directions of the Board of Directors and Chairman under Article of Association and the Service Rules, the writ petition No. 22308 of 2002, was allowed with the finding that the Government dated 3-5-2001 did not operate to annul the resolution of the Board of Director dated 30- 6-1997, delegating appellate powers to the Chairman of the Corporation and that the Chairman had the power and authorization to decide the disciplinary appeal. I have heard Sri H. R. Misra for petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh for respondent-corporation. The question to be decided in the present case has been considered and decided in writ petition No. 22308 of 2002.;