# Virendra Prasad Dubey v. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32302 of 1997
- **Bench:** V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-prasad-dubey-v-senior-divisional-security-commissioner-rpf-allahabad-40508
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Railway Protection Force Rules-1987Rule 148, 153 read with Fundamental
Rules- Rule 56-compulsory retirementPetitioner-a
Constable
in
R.P.F.
proceeded
on
medical
leave-w.e.f.
4.1.93-10.11.94-time
to
time
leave
application-duly
received
by
the
authorities-after 10 yrs. Service-Major
punishment of compulsory retirement
awarded at the age of 35 yrs.-without
serving
the
charge
sheet,
without
affording opportunity-absence from duty
cannot be terned as willful absence from
duty-hence
no
grave
misconductimpugned Order can not sustained.

Held: Para 11
2 All] V.P. Dubey V. Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner/R.P.F., N.R., Allahabad 647
It is settled law that the order of
dismissal/ removal from service can be
awarded only for the acts of grave
nature
or
as
cumulative
effect
of
continued
misconduct
preventing
incorrigibility or complete unfitness for
police service. Merely one incident of
absence and that too because of bad
health and being on valid and justified
grounds/ reasons cannot become basis
to award such punishment. It is an
admitted fact that the respondents had
received
the
application
for
leave
alongwith medical certificates. In such
circumstances it can never be termed as
willful absence without any information
to the competent authority and also can
never be termed as grave misconduct.
Under
the
above
said
facts
and
circumstances and the pleadings of the
instant case, in my view no case to
award such major punishment to the
petitioner is made out and the decision
of the disciplinary authority inflicting a
penalty of removal from service by the
impugned
order
dated
6.10.1994
(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is
ultra vires of Rule 56 (j) of the
Fundamental Rules and is liable to be set
aside. The major punishment of removal
from service by way of compulsory
premature
retirement
is
thus
also
excessive and disproportionate.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC-931
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1294

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
646
vehicle. In Gurnam Singh and another
Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2003 (47)
A.C.C., 1086, it was held that what so
ever the situation be, there is no use to
keep the seized vehicle at the police
station or court campus for a long period,
the Magistrate should pass appropriate
orders immediately by taking appropriate
bond and guarantee as well as security for
return of the said vehicle, if required at
any point of time. In the instant case, the
counsel for the applicant has brought to
my notice that two wheels of the standing
bus has been removed by someone and in
the event, the vehicle is not released, each
and every part will go one by one but for
the metallic frame of the bus. The
admitted position in the present case is
that all the heirs of the actual owners in
whose name the vehicle was registered,
have filed their affidavits/ no objection
certificate. The District Magistrate has
also got the matter enquired through the
Tehsildar and informed the UPSRTC as
such it is evident that the learned
Magistrate should have released the bus
after taking appropriate precaution in
form of bonds or security. The Magistrate
committed a gross error in rejecting the
application,
even
though
all
the
documents were produced before him
including fact was brought to the notice
that the permit stands transferred in the
name of the present applicant.

4. After taking the entire matter into
consideration, I come to the conclusion
that the order of the Magistrate dated
1.7.2005 can not be left to stand. No good
reason has been assigned for refusing the
prayer for release of the bus. Accordingly,
the order dated 1.7.2005 is quashed. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi is
directed to release the bus within a period
of one week from the date, a certified
copy of this order is produced before him
after taking adequate guarantee/ security
of the bus from the applicant Rajiv
Agarwal.

5. For the reasons discussed above,
this application is finally allowed.
Application Allowed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32302 of 1997

Virendra Prasad Dubey
...Petitioner
Versus
Senior Divisional Security Commissioner,
RPF, Allahabad and others ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri M.M. Srivastava
Sri R.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri Govind Saran

Railway Protection Force Rules-1987Rule 148, 153 read with Fundamental
Rules- Rule 56-compulsory retirementPetitioner-a
Constable
in
R.P.F.
proceeded
on
medical
leave-w.e.f.
4.1.93-10.11.94-time
to
time
leave
application-duly
received
by
the
authorities-after 10 yrs. Service-Major
punishment of compulsory retirement
awarded at the age of 35 yrs.-without
serving
the
charge
sheet,
without
affording opportunity-absence from duty
cannot be terned as willful absence from
duty-hence
no
grave
misconductimpugned Order can not sustained.

Held: Para 11
2 All] V.P. Dubey V. Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner/R.P.F., N.R., Allahabad 647
It is settled law that the order of
dismissal/ removal from service can be
awarded only for the acts of grave
nature
or
as
cumulative
effect
of
continued
misconduct
preventing
incorrigibility or complete unfitness for
police service. Merely one incident of
absence and that too because of bad
health and being on valid and justified
grounds/ reasons cannot become basis
to award such punishment. It is an
admitted fact that the respondents had
received
the
application
for
leave
alongwith medical certificates. In such
circumstances it can never be termed as
willful absence without any information
to the competent authority and also can
never be termed as grave misconduct.
Under
the
above
said
facts
and
circumstances and the pleadings of the
instant case, in my view no case to
award such major punishment to the
petitioner is made out and the decision
of the disciplinary authority inflicting a
penalty of removal from service by the
impugned
order
dated
6.10.1994
(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is
ultra vires of Rule 56 (j) of the
Fundamental Rules and is liable to be set
aside. The major punishment of removal
from service by way of compulsory
premature
retirement
is
thus
also
excessive and disproportionate.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC-931
2004 (2) UPLBEC-1294

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri R.K. Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Govind Saran, Advocate learned standing
counsel on behalf of the respondents
Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. The facts of the case in brief are
that the petitioner was appointed as a
constable in Railway Protection Force by
posting at Allahabad on 18.5.1984. In
July 1989, the petitioner was transferred
to the outpost Mughal Sarai (MGS) under
the Incharge Protection Force (IPF),
Chunar. On 19.8.1992, the petitioner
proceeded on medical leave by taking sick
memo and remained as outdoor patient in
the Railway Hospital, Mughal Sarai till
4.1.1993. On 5.1.1993, the petitioner was
discharged from sick list by the Divisional
Medical
Officer-I,
Eastern
Railway
(DMO-I, E.R.), Mughal Sarai in the midst
of the treatment without mentioning the
fact that the petitioner was fit for duty.
The petitioner had to under-go treatment
by a private doctor Dr. A.K. Mehta at
Ballia with effect from 6.1.1993 and
remained under his treatment till 20th
August 1994. During this period, the
petitioner
sent
several
notices
and
informations to the concerned authority
through registered post with proper
medical certificate (PMC) before the
Incharge Protection Force, Chunar. The
petitioner was referred by Dr. A.K. Mehta
to Dr. D. Rai, at District Hospital, Ballia
for further treatment where he remained
under
treatment
from
20.8.1994
to
30.10.1994. Meanwhile, the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner by the Railway authorities and
in the proceedings, 2 charges were framed
against him, which are as under:-

1. og
fnukad
5.1.1993
ls
Mh0,e0vks0@bZ0vkj0@,e0th0,l0 )kjk fld
fyLV ls fMLpktZ fd;s tkus ds ckn u vki
dUVzksfyax vQlj ds le{k mifLFkr gq, vkSj u
dksbZ lwpuk HkstkA

2. og fnukad 5.1.1993 ls vkt (vkjksi i=k tkjh
djus dh frfFk) rd vukf/kd`r :i ls
vuqifLFkfr jgkA

3. The enquiry officer Sri D.L. Shah
vide its report dated 8.9.1994 submitted
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
648
before the respondent no.1 recommended
that the proceedings be initiated against
the petitioner under Rule 153 of the
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,
1987') and held that both the charges 1 &
2 mentioned hereinabove were proved.
The
disciplinary
authority-respondent
no.1 vide its order dated 6.10.1994
compulsorily
retired
the
petitioner
prematurely at the age of 35 years by
imposing the major penalty, under the
provisions of Rules 148 and 153 of the
Rules, though he had only completed 10
years of service.

4. The relevant portions of Rules 148
and 153 of the Rules, 1987 are reproduced
as under: -

"148. Description of Punishments:

148.1.
Any
of
the
following
punishments may, for good and
sufficient reasons and as hereinafter
provided, be imposed on an enrolled
member of the Force.

148.2 Major punishments:

(a)
Dismissal from service (which
shall
ordinarily
be
a
disqualification
for
future
employment
under
the
Government.)
(b)
Removal from service (which
shall not be a disqualification
for future employment under
the Government.)
(c)
Compulsory retirement from
service.
(d)
Reduction in rank or grade.

148.3 Minor punishments:

(a)
Reduction to a lower stage in
the existing scale of pay.
(b)
Withholding of next increment
with or without corresponding
postponement of subsequent
increments
(c)
Withholding of promotion for a
specified period.
(d)
Removal from any office of
distinction or deprivation of any
special emoluments
(e)
Censure.

148.4: Petty punishments:

(a)
Fine
to
any
amount
not
exceeding seven days' pay.
(b)
Confinement to quarter-guard
for a period not exceeding
fourteen days with or without
punishment drill, extra guard
duty, fatigue duty or any other
punitive duty.
(c)
Reprimand.

148.5:
Explanation:......................

"153
Procedure for imposing major
punishments.-

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions
of the Public Servants Inquiries Act,
1850, no order of dismissal, removal,
compulsory retirement or reduction in
rank shall be passed on any enrolled
member of the Force (save as mentioned
in Rule 61) without holding an inquiry, as
far as may be in the manner provided
hereinafter, in which he has been
informed in writing of the grounds on
which it is proposed to take action, and
has
been
afforded
a
reasonable
opportunity of defending himself.
2 All] V.P. Dubey V. Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner/R.P.F., N.R., Allahabad 649
(5) The
disciplinary
authority
shall
deliver or cause to be delivered to the
delinquent member, at lease seventy-two
hours before the commencement of the
inquiry, a copy of the articles of charge
the
statement
of
imputations
of
misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of
documents and witnesses by which each
article of charge is proposed to be
sustained and fix a date when the inquiry
is to commence; subsequent dates being
fixed by the Inquiry Officer.

(10) At the commencement of the inquiry
the party charged shall be asked to enter a
plea of 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after which
evidence necessary to establish the charge
shall be let in. The evidence shall be
material to the charge and may either be
oral or documentary. If oral -

(a)
it shall be direct,
(b)
it shall be recorded by the Inquiry
Officer in the presence of the party
charged; and

the party charged shall be allowed to
cross-examine the witnesses.

(12) All the evidence shall be recorded, in
the presence of the party charged, by the
Inquiry Officer himself or on his dictation
by a scribe. Cross-examination by the
party charged or the fact of his declining
to cross-examine the witness, as the case
may be, shall also be recorded. The
statement of each witness shall be read
over to him and explained, if necessary, in
the language of the witness, whose
signature shall be obtained as a token of
his having understood the contents.
Statement shall also be signed by the
Inquiry Officer and the party charged.
Copy of each statement shall be given to
the party charged who shall acknowledge
receipt on the statement of witness itself.
The Inquiry Officer shall record a
certificate of having read over the
statement to the witness in the presence of
the party charged.

(13) Documentary exhibits, if any, are to
be numbered while being presented by the
concerned witness and reference of the
number shall be noted in the statement of
the witness. Such documents may be
admitted in evidence as exhibits without
being formally proved unless the party
charged does not admit the genuineness of
such a document and wishes to crossexamine the witness who is purported to
have signed it. Copies of the exhibits may
be given to the party charged on demand
except in the case of voluminous
documents, where the party charged may
be allowed to inspect the presence of
Inquiry Officer and take notes.

(14) Unless specifically mentioned in
these rules, the provisions by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply to the
departmental proceedings under these
rules."

4. While passing the order of
compulsory
retirement
against
the
petitioner, the respondent no.1 held that
only one charge regarding unauthorized
absence stood proved whereas the other
charge, i.e., absence from duty without
intimation was not proved in view of the
required information and notice sent by
the petitioner to the concerned authority
from time to time.

5. After the passing of this order, the
petitioner being still ill was treated in the
nearest railway hospital, Ballia/N.E.R.
with effect from 1.11.1994 to 10.11.1994
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
650
and a certificate was issued by the
concerned Medical Officer that he was
henceforth fit for duty. On 11.11.1994,
the petitioner approached the Senior
Divisional Medical Officer/ER Hospital,
Mughal Sarai for necessary attestation
and at the back of the fitness certificate it
was endorsed that the petitioner was fit
for duty. The petitioner approached the
concerned authority with the written
application to permit him to join his duty
but he was not allowed on the ground that
he had already been compulsorily retired
with effect from 6.10.1994.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved
preferred an appeal under the Rules
before the respondent no.2, which was
dismissed vide order-dated 31.7.1995.
The said order was intimated to the
petitioner by respondent no.1 annexed
with its order-dated 2.8.1995. Being
aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.1995
the petitioner preferred a revision on
7.12.1994 before the respondent no.3,
which too was dismissed on 22.7.1996 the
information of which was served on the
petitioner through letter dated 26.7.1996.

7. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner challenging the impugned
orders dated 6.10.1994, 31.7.1995 and
22.7.1996 passed by respondents no. 1,2
& 3 respectively, on the ground that
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 153
of the Rules were initiated against the
petitioner without serving any charge
sheet on him nor he was provided any
reasonable opportunity or facility to
defend his case, even the witnesses were
not
examined
in
accordance
with
procedure and law during the disciplinary
proceedings. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
also
submitted
that
compulsory retirement of an employee
can be made only after he has either
attained the age of 50 years or 55 years, as
the case may be, in terms of F.R. 56 (j) of
the
Fundamental
Rules
and
Supplementary
Rules
Chapter
IX
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'the
Fundamental Rules'), which deals with
retirement and not otherwise, and thus the
petitioner had been wrongly and illegally
retired compulsorily prematurely at the
age of about 35 years only. He has
further contended that there being no
dispute that the petitioner had been ill and
had been submitting proper medical
certificates
regularly,
the
award
of
punishment of removal from service by
way of compulsory retirement was wholly
unreasonable and disproportionate to the
alleged charge of misconduct and also
that no punishment could be awarded on
the basis of the charge no. 2 which was
only consequential to charge no. 1, which
admittedly had not been proved and
dropped by the disciplinary authority. It
has been specifically stressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order of punishment of removal
from service by way of compulsory
retirement passed by the disciplinary
authority, which was affirmed in appeal
and revision, by quasi-judicial orders also
demonstrates complete non-application of
mind. Relevant portions of Rule 56 (j) of
the Fundamental Rules reads as under:

"56
(j)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
this
rule,
the
appropriate authority shall, if it is of
the opinion that it is in the public
interest so to do, have the absolute
right to retire any Government
servant by giving him notice of not
less than three months in writing or
three months' pay and allowances in
lieu of such notice:.
2 All] V.P. Dubey V. Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner/R.P.F., N.R., Allahabad 651
(i)
if he is, in Group 'A' or Group 'B'
service or post in a substantive,
quasi-permanent
or
temporary
capacity
and
hd
entered
Government
service
before
attaining the age of 35 years, after
he has attained the age of 50;
(ii)
in any other case after he has
attained the age of fifty- five years;

Provided that nothing in this clause shall
apply to a Government servant referred to
in clause (e), who entered Government
service on or before the 23rd July, 1966."

Learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his arguments has placed
reliance upon the decisions rendered in
Marari Mohan Deb Vs. Secretary to the
Government of India & others (AIR 1985
S.C. 931) and in Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs.
Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others
(2004) 2 UPLBEC 1294).

8. The case of the respondents, as
referred to in paras-4 & 5 of the counter
affidavit is that the petitioner had
absented himself from duty without any
authority and did not report thereafter till
his services were dispensed with by virtue
of his compulsory retirement under the
provisions of Rule 153 of the Rules. Since
the charges were of very serious nature,
the petitioner deserved the punishment
awarded
to
him.
Learned
counsel
appearing for the respondents placed
reliance on a decision of Punjab and
Haryana High Court given on May 22,
1998 in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union
of India & others (Writ Petition No. 9129
of 1997).

9. I have looked into the record of
the case and heard learned counsel for the
parties at length and on the above
pleadings, the following questions of law
arise for consideration;

1. Whether the impugned order of major
punishment by way of compulsory
retirement prematurely awarded to the
petitioner who had only attained the
age of 35 years and had completed
only 10 years of service is in breach
of the Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental
Rules?

2. Whether the major penalty inflicted
on
the
petitioner
is
grossly
disproportionate to the misconduct
alleged against him and, therefore, is
totally unjust, unfair and inequitable
as contended?

10. From perusal of the pleadings of
the parties and after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, I find that it is
admitted by the respondents that out of
two charges framed against the petitioner,
one charge regarding absence from duty
without intimation was not made out since
required
informations
and
notices
regarding ill-health and treatment sent by
the petitioner was duly received by the
concerned authorities from time to time,
whereas on the charge of unauthorized
absence from duty he has been removed
from service imposing major punishment
of compulsory retirement prematurely. As
per law the petitioner could be retired
compulsorily prematurely only in strict
compliance of the Rule 56 (j) of the
Fundamental Rules and not otherwise.
The learned counsel for the respondents
has been unable to show any other
provisions of law applicable to the case of
the petitioner under which compulsory
premature retirement order could be
passed. Thus when no such compulsory
premature
retirement
order
could
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
652
normally be passed in the case of the
petitioner then the same could not be
imposed by way of major punishment
either.

11. The relevant Rule 56 (j) of the
Fundamental Rules provides that the
appropriate authority if is of the opinion
that it is in the public interest to
compulsorily
retire
prematurely
a
Government servant, he has the absolute
right to retire the Government servant
provided the Government servant had
attained the age of 50 years as per subclause (i) or in any other case after he has
attained the age of fifty five years as per
sub clause (ii) of this Rule. In my view by
no stretch of imagination the alleged
misconduct against the petitioner can be
considered to be an act of grave
misconduct or continued misconduct
indicating incorrigibility and complete
unfitness for service of the petitioner. It is
not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner was habitual absentee. He had
to proceed on leave under compulsion
because of his grave condition of health.
It is settled law that the order of dismissal/
removal from service can be awarded
only for the acts of grave nature or as
cumulative
effect
of
continued
misconduct preventing incorrigibility or
complete unfitness for police service.
Merely one incident of absence and that
too because of bad health and being on
valid and justified grounds/ reasons
cannot become basis to award such
punishment. It is an admitted fact that the
respondents had received the application
for leave alongwith medical certificates.
In such circumstances it can never be
termed as willful absence without any
information to the competent authority
and also can never be termed as grave
misconduct. Under the above said facts
and circumstances and the pleadings of
the instant case, in my view no case to
award such major punishment to the
petitioner is made out and the decision of
the disciplinary authority inflicting a
penalty of removal from service by the
impugned
order
dated
6.10.1994
(Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is
ultra vires of Rule 56 (j) of the
Fundamental Rules and is liable to be set
aside. The major punishment of removal
from service by way of compulsory
premature
retirement
is
thus
also
excessive and disproportionate. Also
looking into the circumstances of the case
as the petitioner may not get any other job
at his present age and also because of the
stigma attached to him on account of the
impugned punishment as a result of which
not only he but also his entire family,
which is totally dependant on him, will be
forced
to
starve.
Such
mitigating
circumstances warrant that the impugned
order of punishment passed by the
disciplinary
authority
by
way
of
compulsorily
retiring
the
petitioner
prematurely should be quashed. The
above said questions formulated for
considerations are decided accordingly.

12. In the result, the impugned orders
dated 6.10.1994 (Annexure No. 1 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent no. 1-
Senior Divisional Security Commissioner/
R.P.F., Northern Railway, Allahabad,
order dated 31.7.1995 (Annexure No. 2 to
the writ petition) passed by respondent
no. 2- the Additional Chief Security
Commissioner/ Railway Protection Force,
Northern Railway, Baroda House, New
Delhi and the order dated 22.7.1996
(Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition)
passed by respondent no. 3- the Chief
Security
Commissioner/
Railway
2 All] Bhagwan Deen Verma V. State of U.P. and others 653
Protection Force, Baroda House, New
Delhi are hereby quashed and the matter
is sent back to the disciplinary authority
for considering and passing a reasoned
and speaking order afresh in the light of
the above observations and in accordance
with law and procedure after affording
full opportunity to the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is placed
before
the
disciplinary
authority
concerned by the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above. No order as to
costs.

 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33954 of 2005

Bhagwan Deen Verma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri Amit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.N. Verma
S.C.

Panchayat
Raj
Rules
1946-Rule-256
readwith
Panchayat
Raj
Act,
1947-
Section 95(1)(g) ceasure of financial and
administrative power of Pradhan-enquiry
report-short of requirement that the
lapes
on
the
part
of
Pradhan-was
deliberate and for deriving personal
benefit democratically elected Pradhan
cannot be removed from its office at the
dictates of administrative authoritiesorder
taking
the
financial
power
quashed.
Held: Para 12, 13, 14 & 16
Under the said rule 256 any loss caused
to the Gram Panchayat due to negligence
or misconduct on the part of the Pradhan
could be the basis for surcharge being
imposed so as to compensate the loss
caused to the Gram Panchayat or its
property. The provision contained in rule
256 must necessarily be harmonized
with Section 95 (1)(g) Sub-section 3 and
read in light of the Division Bench
judgment, referred to above.

Loss caused to the Gram Panchayat
because of some mistake or negligence
of
the
Pradhan,
which
is
neither
deliberate nor intended for any personal
benefit, has been taken care of by rule
256 of the Panchayat Raj Rules and in
such cases order as contemplated by rule
256 alone is required to be passed.

It is, therefore, necessary for removal of
the elected Pradhan under Section 95
(1)(g) that a finding should be recorded
that
the
Pradhan
has
deliberately
misused his official position so as to
derive benefit by his act and in absence
of a finding so recorded, the order of
removal cannot be sustained.

In the totality of the circumstance as
borne out from record of the petition, the
order dated 16.4.2005, passed by the
District Magistrate, Hamirpur cannot be
legally sustained and is hereby quashed.
However, this order shall not prejudice
the recovery of the loss caused to the
Gram Panchayat on the basis of the
assessment made during the enquiry
proceedings in accordance with rule 256
of the Panchayat Raj Rules against the
Petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1978 ALJ 1367

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard P.N. Saxena Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena