B.AMIT STHALEKAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 18.8.2008 whereby he has been dismissed from service from the post of Collection Amin.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.1996. Charge no. 1 was that during the five months from April, 1996 to August, 1996 the total recovery by the petitioner was only 26,859/ - whereas as per the Board of Revenue an Amin is required to make a collection at Rs. 60,000/ - per month and thus the average recovery made by the petitioner in one month comes to only Rs. 5,310/ -, although during the same period on an average he was required to recover at least Rs. 24,990/ -. The charge no. 2 against the petitioner is that he was neither submitting his programme nor attending the meetings of Amins on Tehsil Diwas, which is contrary to the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. The third charge against the petitioner is that he realized Rs. 5,831/ - from one Shri Ram Nihor Yadav but had not deposited the same in the government treasury. An enquiry was held and by an order dated 30.4.1999 the petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal in writ petition no. 27742 of 1998 and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy by order dated 10.5.2004 on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy before the State Public Services Tribunal. The petitioner then filed a claim petition no. 1062 of 2004 and after exchange of pleadings the claim petition was heard and allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 31.7.2007. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in the service by order dated 4.10.2007. He was then issued a show cause notice to submit reply within 15 days. It is in pursuance thereof that the departmental enquiry has been concluded and the fresh order dated 18.8.2008 had been passed and the petitioner was removed from service.
(3.) I have heard Shri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the documents on record. The contention of the petitioner that under the direction of the Service Tribunal dated 31.7.2007 the respondents had reinstated the petitioner in service and the Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondent no. 1 to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within the stipulated period of three months if they find it justified after providing him the copy of the enquiry report and copies of the relevant documents. Although in paragraph 36 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner had moved an application for providing him the documents and has also alleged that the same was not supplied to him but he has not indicated as to what those documents related to and how they were relevant for the purposes of the enquiry and that non supply of the same to him seriously prejudiced his defence. From a perusal of the documents it is noticed that the charge against the petitioner was serious. He was a seasonal Amin and was required to make collection of atleast Rs.60,000/ - per month as per the norms laid down by the revenue department but the petitioner had recovered only 26,859/ - during five months from April, 1996 to August, 1996 which gave an average of Rs. 5,310/ - per month as against the requirement of atleast 24,990/ - per month. The petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain the cause for this extremely poor recovery made by him and therefore I find the charge No. 1 to be correctly proved against him.;