The Allahabad High Court has refused to intervene on the suspension order of Mithilesh Kumar Yadav, Office Assistant in Mau, accused of uploading the contractor’s bill of Rs 17 crore on the website of Electricity Corporation instead of Rs 1.7 crore.
A Single Bench of Justice J.J Munir passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mithilesh Kumar Yadav.
The petition is directed against an order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Managing Director, P.V.V.N.L, Varanasi placing the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry.
The petitioner is an Office Assistant, a Class -III employee and was posted in the Electricity Distribution Division-Ist, Mau. While posted there, the allegation against the petitioner, as appears from the impugned order is that he uploaded on some site of the Corporation using his own I.D, the bills of contractors raised against the respondent Corporation, that are said to be fake.
Anil Bhushan, Senior Advocate assisted by Arpan Srivastava, Advocate has been at pains to take the Court through the preliminary inquiry report dated 19.05.2023 and other documents to show that the petitioner’s complicity was not found in the preliminary inquiry.
He has further emphasized that during the period of time that the alleged fake bills were uploaded to the Corporation’s website, the petitioner had already been transferred to Sub-Division, Mau from the headquarters and did not have access.
Anil Bhushan, Senior Advocate further urged that it is not a case where any loss was caused to the Corporation. It is just a case of uploading certain bills on the website, which are alleged to be fake. No actual loss ensued.
The submission, therefore, is that the power to suspend has been arbitrarily exercised in this case.
Adarsh Bhushan, Counsel for the Corporation upon instructions received states that fake bills worth Rs 17,00,00,000/- were uploaded to the Corporation portal employing the petitioner’s ID.
It is argued that the manipulation was caught just before the bills could be further processed and payments made to the beneficiary contractor on the fake bills raised.
At this stage Anil Bhushan, Senior Advocate points out that the sum of money involved in the fake bills is not Rs 17,00,00,000/- but Rs 1,70,00,000/- and to this end he has invited the Court’s attention to an F.I.R giving rise to Crime under Sections 420 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C, Police StationKotwali Mau, District-Mau lodged against the petitioner and other employees of the Corporation.
The Court observed that,
Upon hearing Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Pawan Kumar Mishra, Counsel appearing for respondent no 4 and Adarsh Bhushan, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, the Court is of the opinion that this is a matter where there are serious allegations of uploading fake bills of contractors employed by the Corporation, in order to cause loss to the Corporation and that has been done prima facie using the petitioner’s ID. In fact, whether the petitioner was posted at a different substation at the relevant period of time and whether he had access or not, are all issues that this Court cannot examine at this stage while judging the validity of the suspension order. These are all issues that have to be gone into by the Inquiry Officer.
So far as the suspension order is concerned, the allegation relates to a financial matter, where the petitioner is alleged to have uploaded fake bills on the Corporation’s website. Whether the attempt to defraud the Corporation succeeded or failed or resulted in loss or not, is not material to the nature of the allegation against the petitioner. All that matters is that the allegation is serious enough to entail major penalty, if proved.
This is not to say in the least, so far as the Court is concerned, there is any truth to the allegations. It is a matter which has to be established by the Corporation at the inquiry by evidence led on their behalf.
“The charge-sheet will be served upon the petitioner within a period of fifteen days, if not already served.
The Court, however, in the circumstances, declines to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. At the same time, the respondents Corporation are directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months, wherein the petitioner will cooperate. In the event, the inquiry is not concluded within the said period of time, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Court again on the cause of action of protracted suspension from service”, the order reads.
The Court disposed of the petition in terms of aforesaid orders.