Judgment:
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Sri H. S. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, Allahabad, and Sri Neeraj Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of UP.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.5.2004 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) of the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter in short called as the 'High Court') (on the Administrative Side) issued by the Registrar General of High Court, whereby in reference to the alleged charges of owning chauffeur driven 'Maruti Esteem Car' wearing similar dress as other drivers of the High Court and for using clips and red-blue light on the top of vehicle, and for inscribing 'HIGH COURT1 on the front and rear part of the car and for unauthorisedly parking the same in the area prescribed for Hon'ble Judges only. The petitioner in view of inquiry report was held guilty of misconduct and while punishing and stopping one annual increment cumulatively, the petitioner was held to be entitled only to the payment as paid to him as subsistence allowance during his suspension. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents for payment of his full salary and increments during the suspension period, along with declaring the provisions of Rule 12(2) of 'The Allahabad High Court Private Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2001' (hereinafter in short called as the 'Rules, 2001') as inoperative and void.
3. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is a Private Secretary in the High Court, he was placed under suspension on 1.5.2002 and was served with a charge-sheet dated 18.11.2002 along with the memo of charges and evidences relied upon. The charges levelled against the petitioner in nutshell are as follows :
'That you, during the year 2002 while posted as Private Secretary, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court owned and maintained white Maruti Esteem Car (Model-1993), bearing registration No. U.P. 32-AA 786. The said Car had an inscription 'High Court' on its front and rear side. The Car had also arrangement for red/blue beacon light on the top. It was being driven by driver who used to bear similar dress and Cap, as is provided to High Court drivers. The said Car was also parked at the place, meant for keeping the Cars of Hon'ble Judges. It shows your clear cut insubordination, indiscipline, impersonation and also keeping the property disproportionate beyond your means. It also shows must unbecoming conduct on your part as Government servant. You have failed to maintain absolute integrity and thus, you have committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 read with Rule 24 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.'
4. Sri N. C. Sinha, Special Officer (Vigilance) of the High Court, had made the inquiry as an Inquiry Officer. Reply to the above charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 21.12.2002. In support of the charges, statement of Sri P. D. Kaushik, the then Registrar of High Court (Lucknow Bench), was recorded, who has proved his version, and the petitioner also in support of his contentions has examined four defence witnesses e.g. Sadik Husain as D.W.-l, Satya Narain as D.W.-2, Girja Shanker as D.W.-3 and Raj Kumar as D.W.-5 apart from himself as D.W.-4. in support of his defence, the petitioner also produced a letter dated 5.12.2002 of Former Senior Judge of the High Court, according to which the petitioner was allowed by him to part his car in scheduled area and the petitioner had also filed his written submission on 7.1.2004 before the Inquiry Officer.
5. The Inquiry Officer has considered the reply of the petitioner dated 21.12.2002 to the charge-sheet and after considering the material, documentary as well as oral, and the evidences of both the sides, has submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer has observed in its report dated 5.2.2004 as below :-
'.......In view of the matter there could be no reason for the Registrar Sri Kaushik to make false report on the point against Sri Shakir Khan posted as Private Secretary. More over from the materials already pointed out and discussed above it is well established that Charged Official had displayed inscription 'High Court' on car No. U.P. 32-AA 0786 knowing well that it was not property of High Court and was his own Private Vehicle.'
'In para 13 of WS it has been mentioned that fixing of such inscription facilities in getting quick medical aid and information in cases of accident so much inscription is used. However this is not all. Actually use of inscription 'High Court' on private vehicle lets others i.e., public in general, civil/traffic police or like authorities of enforcement in Uttar confusion as to actual ownership of such vehicle and to believe that it is vehicle of High Court. Consequently it discourages/deters them from taking actions in matter of accident, breach of Road Rules Protocol priorities etc. by such vehicles and also from making search of such vehicles. Obviously purpose of displaying such inscription on private vehicles is not fair. Such inscription acts like an umbrella on the foul activities involving private vehicles using such inscription. Use of inscription of High Court on vehicles with the knowledge that is not property of High Court but private property of self is an act of false representation amounting to misconduct.'
'....In the instant matter inscription used on the impugned car was not 'officer/official High Court' but was 'High Court' which was misstatement as to ownership/possession obviously for undue favour in the matters as indicate her in before.'
'In the present matter there is no question of violation of any penal law but violation of Conduct Rules which expects a Government Servant, to maintain obsolute integrity/truthfulness/fairness in his conduct/behavior and not to act in a way which may hamper/cause difficulty to any one in performance of his own lawful act in any way.'
6. The operative part of the report dated 5.2.2004 read as under :-
'Thus charged official is guilty of indiscipline/insubordination to the extent that without making any application to the Registrar he directly approached Hon'ble the Senior Judge for seeking permission to part his car at a place not scheduled for parking private cars and even did not inform the Registrar about accord of such oral permission. He is also guilty of unfair conduct/misrepresentation by displaying inscription 'High Court' on car registration No.- U.P. 32-AA 0786 obviously for taking undue benefits as indicated heroin before knowing well that it is his own property and not the property of High Court.'
7. In reference to the said inquiry report a show cause notice was issued by the Registrar General to the petitioner and the same was also responded by the petitioner by his reply dated 13.4.2004. After considering the inquiry report and response of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the Chief Justice (Administrative Side) by its order dated 12th May, 2004, the impugned in the present writ petition, has found the petitioner guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Rule, 1956') and has awarded punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and while revoking the suspension order and reinstating the petitioner into service indicated that the petitioner was to be not entitled to any payment over and above the subsistence allowance paid to him during the suspension period and the suspension period of the petitioner was treated as 'spent on duty' for the purposes of retiral benefits only. Hence, the present writ petition.
8. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that he has not violated any provision of Rule or regulation or law and has not violated any provisions of 'Rules, 1956'. The petitioner has denied to have inscribed the word 'High Court' in front and rear side of his car rather he has accepted to affix only High Court Car Pass No. 327 in front glass to the car and the petitioner had orally sought permission of the Former Senior Judge of the High Court (Lucknow Bench) to park his car in the parking area, where, only vehicles of Hon'blc Judges were being parked, however, the Registrar had never raised any kind of objection earlier. The petitioner has also asserted that he has never used any red or blue light on the head of the vehicle According to the petitioner, the High Court authorities have not prohibited its other employees, who are inscribing the word 'High Court' on their vehicles, whereas, the petitioner has been discriminated in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, more so, when the petitioner has sought permission as required under Rule 27-A. of 'Rules, 1956' Since there is no corresponding posts of status of Private Secretaries of this High Court, as held by the petitioner, under the Government of Uttar Pradesh, as such, Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 or any other rules applicable to the Government servants of Uttar Pradesh are not applicable to the petitioner, as no Rule or regulation has ever been made in exercise of powers under Article 229(2) of the Constitution, under which the disciplinary proceedings could be conducted against the Private Secretaries of the High Court, therefore, the provisions of 'Rules, 1956' arc not applicable to the petitioner as well as Private Secretaries of the High Court. As contended further by the petitioner, Private Secretaries of this High Court could be equated with the Private Secretaries under the Central Government. According to the petitioner 'Rules, 2001' as applicable to the petitioner and Private Secretaries of this High Court is unconstitutional, illegal and inoperative, inasmuch as the same has not provided any forum or provision for filing any appeal against the departmental action. It has also been argued that the conclusion of Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence and there is non-application of mind on his part, as such, his finding its perverse. Besides these above, no other points were argued for an on behalf of the petitioner.
9. The Inquiry Officer in its report has rightly observed that 'Rules, 1956' framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution regulates the conduct of Government servants employed in connection with affairs of the State of U.P. and in view of Rule 2(b) thereof the Government servant has been defined as a person appointed to Public Service and posts in connection with affairs of State of U.P. Obviously conduct of charged official i.e. petitioner was to be governed by the said rules as the petitioner himself had moved applications before the Registrar of the High Court in connection with permission for acquisition of car in reference to Rule 24 (2) of 'Rules, 1956', as admitted by him in his written submission. As observed by the Inquiry Officer, it dopes not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that his conduct is not governed by the provisions of 'Rules, 1956', as he was not required to move through Registrar for seeking permission to park his car in the High Court campus at any place other than scheduled place of parking and could well approach Hon'ble the Senior Judge of High Court directly and was not even obliged to intimate the Registrar to seek permission and could even display inscription 'High Court' on car having registration No. U.P. 32 AA 0786 despite knowledge and fact that it was his own property and not the property of the High Court.
10. Learned Counsel for the High Court has made his submissions in consonance to the findings of the inquiry report and supporting the verdict of the Chief Justice (Administrative Side).
11. It is relevant to mention the relevant provisions of Rules 24 (1) and 27-A of the 'Rules, 1956' and Rules 12 and 13 of 'Rules, 20011 as under :-
'24. Movable, immovable and valuable property.-(1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous knowledge of the appropriate authority acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family:
Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular and reputed dealer shall require the previous sanction of the appropriate authority.'
'27-A. Representation by Government servants.-No Government servant shall whether personally or through a member of his family, make any representation to Government or any other authority except through the proper channel and in accordance with such directions as the Government may issue from time to time. The Explanation to Rule 27 shall apply to this Rule also.'
'12. Regulation of other matter.-(1) All the persons appointed in any categories of posts of Private Secretaries, shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice.
(2) In respect of all matters, not provided for in these rules, regarding their conduct, control and discipline, the rules and orders for the time being and force and applicable to the Government servants holding the corresponding posts in the Government, shall apply to the Private Secretaries of the High Court:
Provided that the said powers excrcisable under the rules and orders of the Government by the Governor, shall be exercised by the Chief Justice or by such officer, as he may direct:
Provided further that no order containing modifications, variations or exceptions in rules or orders relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions shall be made by the Chief Justice except with the approval of the Governor.'
'13. Residuary Powers.-Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules not specifically provided for herein on in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for :
Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, the same shall be made with the approval of the Governor.'
12. It has been argued for and on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order is legally correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1999) 8 SCC 90, R. S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Ors., where the Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of removal of writ petitioner challenged before the High Court on the ground of perversity of conclusions, no evidence, non- application of mind and malaftde, there was limited scope of judicial review in the departmental inquiry, even if, there was some reasonable support of the findings of the inquiry authority, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction could not reverse the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, and in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court there is limited scope of interference available with the High Court.
13. In R. S. Saini (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any scope of judicial review, where the claim of the writ petitioner was assailed his removal on the ground of perversity of the inquiry based on no evidence, non-application of mind and malafide, as the findings of the disciplinary inquiry did not suffer from infirmities, as observed by the Hon'bte Supreme Court the Inquiry Officer is the sole Judge of the facts so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate its findings and adequacy or reliability, which cannot be permitted to be canvassed in the writ proceedings, more so, when the conclusions have been drawn in a reasonable manner and objectively, such conclusions cannot be termed as perverse or not based on any material. The Supreme Court has also held that the High Court as well as the Supreme Court within limited scope of their jurisdiction could hold that the disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent did not suffer from infirmities.
14. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties. We find that 'Rules, 1956' as well as .'Rules, 2001' are applicable to the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration the records, facts, documentary and oral evidences/ witnesses as well as defence witnesses, and after affording opportunity of hearing and after careful consideration 'has found the petitioner guilty of charges of misconduct. The conclusion and finding of the Inquiry Officer is in consonance to the procedure prescribed for and on the basis of the inquiry report the Chief Justice being administrative head of the High Court has passed the impugned order correctly and non-prescribing provisions of appeal under 'Rules, 2001' shall not vitiate the 'Rules, 2001'-as well as the punishment imposed on the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the rules applicable to the petitioner. Such assertions of the petitioner itself goes against him, if any, provision or forum of appeal was available in 'Rules, 2001' itself then the petitioner was debarred to approach this Court directly by preferring this writ petition and in these conditions the matter could have been relegated back to the Appellate Authority rather to entertain the present writ petition. It is for non-availability of provision or form of appeal under 'Rules, 2001' the petitioner have taken liberty to come to this Court directly for redressal of his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner could not place any material or could not make any legal submissions, whereby the 'Rules, 2001' could be said to be unconstitutional or illegal. Keeping in view the fact-findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, the decision has correctly been taken by the Chief Justice (on his Administrative Side). This Court is not to sit over the finding of disciplinary authority/Chief Justice (Administrative Side) in the light of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1997) 7 SCC 463, Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham; (1997) 6 SCC 381, State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bakhshish Singh, as well as in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1998) 9 SCC 220, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. v. Har Narain Singh and Ors..
15. The Inquiry Officer has considered the available records, papers, evidences and after analyzing these has arrived at the conclusion, which could not said to have suffered from perversity or non-application of mind. We do not find any discrepancy or infirmity in the conclusion/findings and analysis of the inquiry report, which has correctly been affirmed by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, there is no scope of any judicial review in the decision arrived at by the Chief Justice in reference to the departmental inquiry. Thus, in view of the above observations there is no scope of any interference in the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as in the decision of the Chief Justice (Administrative Side), therefore, the order impugned in the present writ petition is not to be interfered with and no relief as prayed for could be granted to the petitioner.
16. In view of the other observations, the writ petition is dismissed.