- (1.) THIS writ petition was filed on 20-12-1993 challenging the order of suspension passed against the petitioner who at the relevant time was officiating Secretary, Husainabad, Shabnajaf and allied trust. It is not clear as to whether before appointing him as officiating Secretary approval of the State Government was obtained or not as no counter affidavit has yet been filed. It is also not clear as to whether before suspending him approval of the State Government as contemplated in Clause 12 of the scheme of management was obtained from the State Government.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has placed before this Court a letter dated 19-5-1995 which was seat by the District Magistrate/administrator, Husainabad trust to Sri N. H. Zaidi for asking him to submit his report. The order does not indicate that in what capacity Sri N. H, Zaidi was to submit his report because the letter does not even indicate that Sri N. H. Zaidi was appointed as inquiry officer. On the previous date we directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant file pertaining to disciplinary pro ceedings which were initiated against the petitioner but the same was not produced as according to Mr. S. A. H. Rizvi, counsel appearing on behalf of the trust. District Magistrate was busy on law and order duty in connection with a political rally. It is a matter of common knowledge that District Magistrate does not carry office file with him when he is away from his office in connection with the law and order duty. The file could have been obtained either from the office of the District Magistrate, who according to the respon dents, has been functioning as the Administrator of the said trust or from the office of the trust and produced the same, but it was nut done. The file was ordered to be produced simply for the reason that according to the respondent, the Secretary of the trust, according to the scheme of the management framed under the U. P. Muslim Waqf Act, has to maintain the proper account of the Waqf, its properties, claims and liabili ties. Petitioner was suspended on 24-4-1993, by an alleged resolution, which was passed in an urgent meeting held on 23-4-1993 under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, Lucknow for serious charges of dereliction of duties, gross negligence and serious financial irregularity committed on account of the sale of Labyrinth passes of the Aasfi Imambara, resulting in loss to the tune of Rs. 66,000. Case of the petitioner is that no such resolution was ever passed by the Committee of Management. It was further averred by the petitioner that Management had posted a Darooga Imambara namely Sri Mehdi Mirza, whose duty was to maintain, look-after, supervise and manage the affairs of the Imambara. At the time of preparation of annual account. In the month of March, the petitioner came to find out that the said Darooga as Labryinth Incharge, had made defalcations and had committed gross irregularities. Petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the District Magistrate, who directed the Secretary, to speak. On 23- 3-1993, the petitioner was allowed to have the interview with the Chairman (District Magistrate) who ordered to transfer the suppervisory staff. On 27-3-1993, the petitioner trans ferred the Labryinth Incharge Sri Mehdi Mirza and relied him of the said duty. In between 3-4-1993 to 11-4-1993, after going through the record, the petitioner found that there was a lot of bungeling In the matter and met the District Magistrate on 11-4-1993 and apprised him of the situation. On the same day, District Magistrate directed the petitioner to file the FIR with police station Chowk, which was filed by the petitioner. The District Magistrate on the same day was intimated accordingly. Thereafter, the District Magis trate directed the Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow to probe into the matter. On 12-4-1993, another FIR was lodged by Additional City Magistrate under Section 409/467/468/471,1. P. C. , in which the petitioner was also named as an accused. It was further averred that Sri Mehdi Mirza confessed before the Additional City Magistrate that he had paid the sale proceed to the Labryinth passes to the tune of Rs. 2,06,170 to one Sri Bahar Alam, under the impres sion that he must have obtained orders from the Secretary of Committee of Management. Sri Bahar Alam accepted to have received the aforesaid amount from Sri Mehdi Mirza. He submitted vouchers for the electrification of the Imambara and the boring of water pipe near the Mosque amounting to Rs, 1,01,834. 50, He further tendered rupees one lac. District Magistrate directed the petitioner to the money and the application from Sri Mehdi Mirza, which has been addressed to the Secretary, stating therein the fact that he had paid Rs 2,06,170 to Sri Bahar Alam. A photo copy of the application of Shri Mehdi Mirza dated 16-4-1993 has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 7. Under the direction of the District Magistrate, the petitioner deposited rupees one Lac on 17-3-1973 in the State Bank' Saving Bank Account of Husainabad Endowment Fund. It was denied that on 23-3-1993 any meeting of the committee of management was held He had only asked the members to see that the remaining amount of a sum of rupees one lac six thousands be deposited and then the vouchers may be accounted for. It was submitted that from the cash pay-in-slip dated 5-5-1993, it is evident that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,06,000 appears to have been deposited in the account of the aforesaid trust.
(3.) IT was vehemently argued by Sri S. A. H. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that Darooga simply manages the affairs of the management and he has no connection with the resolution and the deposit of the entry-fee. After the suspension of the petitioner, one Sri Husain Mehdi was appointed as Secretary In-Charge. The petitioner was not available to hand over the charge and therefore, the Committee passed the resolution on 4-5-1993 directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the Secretary la-Charge and communication in that regard was sent to the petitioner on 5-5- 1993. IT was submitted that all the relevant documents were in the custody of the petitioners and he had not yet handed over the charge. IT was stated that an independent enquiry would be held in the matter. Mr. S. A. H. Rizvi, counsel for the respondents argued that the period of suspension of the petitioner was prolonged for the reason directly attributable to the petitioner, as he had not handed over the charge. This fact has been denied in the rejoinder affidavit and it has been averred that allegation has been concocted for the purpose of this case. The petitioner has been regularly attending the office and it was absolutely false to state that the petitioner ever absconded. Opposite parties never cared to take the charge from him. Opposite parties had always been avoiding to take the charge from the petitioner. It has been denied that all the relevant docu ments are in the custody of the petitioner.;