R. L. Gulati, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the office of the opposite party, the District Judge, Lucknow on 3rd November, 1939. In due course he gained promotion to different posts and finally in January, 1973 he was working as Munsarim, Judge small Cause Court, Lucknow. It appears that some complaints were made about the loss of nine plaints filed in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court. Lucknow. A preliminary enquiry was held by Shri Om Prakash, the then Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow. He submitted a report holding that the 9 plaints were actually handed over, to the petitioner in the month of January. 1973 and they had been lost due to his negligence. On receipt of this report Shri H. G. Shukla, the then District Judge, Lucknow ordered a more thorough enquiry against the petitioner according to the rules after framing charges against him. Shri I. S Mathur, Additional Judge, Small Cause Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
(2.) Before the enquiry could commence the petitioner filed an application on 9th June, 1973 in which he admitted the loss of the plaints due to his negligence. He also prayed that in view of his admission it was not necessary to hold an enquiry. He, however, expressed his sincere regrets and threw himself at the mercy of the District Judge for awarding him such punishment as he may deem fit and proper. Mr. Shukla accepted his suggestion and abandoned the enquiry. He recorded a finding that the plaints in question were presented to the petitioner on different dates in January, 1973 and they had been lost due to his negligence. He then set out to examine the facts and circumstances of the case with a view to awarding suitable punishment to the petitioner. He noticed that Sri Om Prakash, who held the preliminary enquiry had spoken very highly of the integrity of the petitioner and had come to the conclusion that no mala fide could be attributed to the petitioner inasmuch as the Court fees stamps had already been punched and bore the names of the plaintiffs so that the stamps could not be used a second time. Mr. Shukla agreed with these observations and stated:- "I had also occasion to watch Sri Devi Dayal Srivastava, when he worked as II Clerk in my office. He impressed me as an honest and straightforward worker, though he was not as competent as I would like my II Clerk to be. But this does not reflect on the honesty, integrity and straightforwardness of Shri Devi Dayal Srivastava. in the circumstances of the case I have no hesitation in agreeing with Sri Om Prakash that Sri Devi Dayal Srivastava could not have any intention to remove the plaints himself." He went on to say that as observed by Sri Om Prakash, Sri Devi Dayal Srivastava was more or less on the verge of retirement. He joined this Department on 3-11-1939 and throughout his service of more than 33 years, he had not been guilty of any misconduct. His character roll was quite clean except for an adverse entry dated 17-9-1967 by the District Judge who had reprimanded him for his failure to cope with the work as suits clerk. He further observed that as the petitioner could not derive any monetary gain from the removal of the plaints, he was merely guilty of negligence and nothing more.
(3.) Sri Om Prakash had pointed out in his preliminary report that the petitioner was a victim of a conspiracy in as much a senior official of his own grade was interested in ousting him and occupying that post himself. In his explanation the petitioner had not named the official who wanted to oust him but on enquiry Shri Om Prakash came to the conclusion that one Shri Madho Prasad, the Record Keeper of the District Judge's court was the person who aspiring to occupy the post of the petitioner and was responsible for the removal of the plaints. Mr. Shukla agreed with the finding also and made the following observation:- "From the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that Sri Devi Dayal Srivastava has been a victim of a nefarious plan to get him removed from his present post. I am, therefore, quite definite in my mind that if I were to award a deterrent punishment which may seem to be called for in view of the serious nature of the negligence resulting in the loss of as many as nine plaints (or even a hand punishment of removal from service) or compulsory retirement to Shri Devi Dayal Srivastava I would be only playing into the hands of those who wanted his removal from the post of the Munsarim, Judge, Small Cause Court by hook or by crook. Not only this (every honest official occupying covered) post would also, in that case, remain constantly exposed to such plans by the machine,tors. This would result in all round demoralisation and consequent inefficiency in the working of the offices." He accordingly passed the following order:- "Upon careful consideration of the matter I am satisfied that a punishment of reduction of Sri Devi Dayal Srivastava by two stages in his present scale of pay would meet the ends of justice, would be a sufficient punishment to him and would, at the same time, be an effective discouragement to persons who might be thinking of ousting their colleagues from coveted places in the manner this incident was enacted." He also awarded him the following adverse entry:- "He is reduced by two stages in his present time scale of pay for being negligence in performance of his duties as Munsarim of the Court of Judge, Small Cause, resulting in loss of as many as nine plaints.;